2016 Ods Montreal Protocol Handbook

Handbook for the
Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer
Tenth edition (2016)
UNEP
Ozone Secretariat
United Nations Environment Programme
Published 2016
By the
Secretariat for
The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer &
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

PO Box 30552-00100
Nairobi
Kenya
website: http://ozone.unep.org
email: ozoneinfo@unep.org
ISBN: 978-9966-076-11-3
Printed and bound in Kenya by UNON. Printed on recycled paper.
Layout and formatting:

Ozone Secretariat, UNEP
ii
CONTENTS
Contents
Foreword .................................................................................................................. xi
Introduction............................................................................................................ xiii
Section 1 The Montreal Protocol .................................................. 1

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer ................. 3
Preamble ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Article 1: Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 4
Article 2: Control Measures ......................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction to the adjustments .................................................................................................................... 5
Article 2A: CFCs ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Article 2B: Halons ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Article 2C: Other fully halogenated CFCs ................................................................................................... 7
Article 2D: Carbon tetrachloride ................................................................................................................. 8
Article 2E: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform) .............................................................................. 8
Article 2F: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons ........................................................................................................ 9
Article 2G: Hydrobromofluorocarbons...................................................................................................... 10
Article 2H: Methyl bromide ...................................................................................................................... 10
Article 2I: Bromochloromethane ............................................................................................................... 11
Article 3: Calculation of control levels ...................................................................................................... 11
Article 4: Control of trade with non-Parties............................................................................................... 12
Article 4A: Control of trade with Parties ................................................................................................... 14
Article 4B: Licensing ................................................................................................................................. 14
Article 5: Special situation of developing countries .................................................................................. 14
Article 6: Assessment and review of control measures ............................................................................. 17
Article 7: Reporting of data ....................................................................................................................... 17
Article 8: Non-compliance......................................................................................................................... 18
Article 9: Research, development, public awareness and exchange of information .................................. 18
Article 10: Financial mechanism ............................................................................................................... 18
Article 10A: Transfer of technology .......................................................................................................... 20
Article 11: Meetings of the parties............................................................................................................. 20
Article 12: Secretariat ................................................................................................................................ 21
Article 13: Financial provisions ................................................................................................................. 21
Article 14: Relationship of this Protocol to the Convention ...................................................................... 21
Article 15: Signature .................................................................................................................................. 22
Article 16: Entry into force ........................................................................................................................ 22
Article 17: Parties joining after entry into force ........................................................................................ 22
Article 18: Reservations............................................................................................................................. 22
Article 19: Withdrawal .............................................................................................................................. 22
Article 20: Authentic texts ......................................................................................................................... 22
Annex A: Controlled substances ................................................................................................................ 23
Annex B: Controlled substances ................................................................................................................ 23
Annex C: Controlled substances ................................................................................................................ 24
Annex D:* A list of products** containing controlled substances specified in Annex A ......................... 26
Annex E: Controlled substance .................................................................................................................. 26
Summary of control measures under the Montreal Protocol ............................. 27

Annex A – Group I: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114 and CFC-115) .... 27
Annex A – Group II: Halons (halon 1211, halon 1301 and halon 2402) ............................................. 28
Annex B – Group I: Other fully halogenated CFCs (CFC-13, CFC-111, CFC-112, CFC-211,
CFC-212, CFC-213, CFC-214, CFC-215, CFC-216, CFC-217) ......................................... 29
Annex B – Group II: Carbon tetrachloride ........................................................................................... 30
Annex B – Group III: 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) ....................................................... 31
iii
CONTENTS
Contents
Annex C – Group I: HCFCs (consumption) ......................................................................................... 32

Annex C – Group I: HCFCs (production) ............................................................................................ 33
Annex C – Group II: HBFCs................................................................................................................ 34
Annex C – Group III: Bromochloromethane........................................................................................ 34
Annex E – Group I: Methyl bromide ................................................................................................... 35
Allowance for production to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5(1)
Parties following the Montreal Adjustments in 2007 .................................. 36
Annex A – Group I: CFCs ................................................................................................................... 37
Annex A – Group II: Halons ................................................................................................................ 37
Annex B – Group I: Other fully halogenated CFCs ............................................................................. 38
Annex B – Group II: Carbon tetrachloride ........................................................................................... 38
Annex B – Group III: 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) ....................................................... 38
Annex C – Group I: HCFCs ................................................................................................................. 39
Annex E – Group I: Methyl bromide ................................................................................................... 39
Section 2 Decisions of the Meetings of the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol ..................................................... 41
Decisions of the Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol .................... 43
Index to the decisions ................................................................................................................................ 44
First Meeting of the Parties (Helsinki, 2–5 May 1989) ........................................................................ 44
Second Meeting of the Parties (London, 27–29 June 1990)................................................................. 45
Third Meeting of the Parties (Nairobi, 19–21 June 1991) .................................................................... 46
Fourth Meeting of the Parties (Copenhagen, 23–25 November 1992) ................................................. 47
Fifth Meeting of the Parties (Bangkok, 17–19 November 1993) ......................................................... 49
Sixth Meeting of the Parties (Nairobi, 6–7 October 1994)................................................................... 50
Seventh Meeting of the Parties (Vienna, 5–7 December 1995) ........................................................... 51
Eighth Meeting of the Parties (San José, 25–27 November 1996) ....................................................... 53
Ninth Meeting of the Parties (Montreal, 15–17 September 1997) ....................................................... 54
Tenth Meeting of the Parties (Cairo, 23–24 November 1998) ............................................................. 56
Eleventh Meeting of the Parties (Beijing, 29 November – 3 December 1999) .................................... 57
Twelfth Meeting of the Parties (Ouagadougou, 11 – 14 December 2000) ........................................... 58
Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties (Colombo, 16 – 19 October 2001) .................................................. 59
Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties (Rome, 25 – 29 November 2002) .................................................. 61
Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties (Nairobi, 10 – 14 November 2003) ................................................... 63
First Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties (Montreal, 24 – 26 March 2004) ....................................... 65
Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties (Prague, 22 – 26 November 2004) ................................................... 66
Second Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties (Montreal, 1 July 2005) ................................................ 68
Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties (Dakar, 12 – 16 December 2005)................................................. 69
Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties (New Delhi, 30 October – 3 November 2006) ............................... 71
Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties (Montreal, 17 – 21 September 2007) ............................................. 73
Twentieth Meeting of the Parties (Doha, 16 – 20 November 2008) .................................................... 75
Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties (Port Ghalib, Egypt, 4–8 November 2009)................................. 76
Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties (Bangkok, 8–12 November 2010) .......................................... 78
Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties (Bali, 21–25 November 2011) .................................................. 79
Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties (Geneva, 12–16 November 2012) ........................................... 81
Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties (Bangkok, 21–25 October 2013)................................................ 82
Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties (Paris, 17–21 November 2014) ................................................. 83
Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties (Dubai, 1–5 November 2015) ............................................... 84
Article 1: Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 85
Decisions on controlled substances ...................................................................................................... 85
Decisions on destruction and banks ..................................................................................................... 87
Decisions on feedstock ......................................................................................................................... 99
Decisions on process agents ............................................................................................................... 100
Decisions on used controlled substances............................................................................................ 115
Decisions on other issues ................................................................................................................... 117
iv
CONTENTS
Contents
Article 2: Control measures ..................................................................................................................... 118

Decisions on adjustments of the control measures ............................................................................. 118
Decisions on essential uses ................................................................................................................ 122
Decisions on essential uses: laboratory and analytical uses ............................................................... 144
Decisions on essential uses: metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) .............................................................. 156
Decisions on CFCs ............................................................................................................................. 169
Decisions on halons............................................................................................................................ 171
Decisions on carbon tetrachloride ...................................................................................................... 177
Decisions on HCFCs .......................................................................................................................... 180
Decisions on methyl bromide ............................................................................................................. 189
Decisions on hydrofluorocarbons....................................................................................................... 195
Decisions on quarantine and pre-shipment ........................................................................................ 197
Decisions on critical-use exemptions ................................................................................................. 210
Decisions on new substances ............................................................................................................. 235
Article 4: Control of trade with non-Parties............................................................................................. 240
Decisions on non-Parties in compliance with the Protocol ................................................................ 240
Decisions on restrictions on trade with non-Parties ........................................................................... 245
Decisions on other trade issues .......................................................................................................... 248
Article 4A: Control of trade with Parties ................................................................................................. 249
Article 4B: Licensing ............................................................................................................................... 252
Decisions on licensing systems .......................................................................................................... 252
Decisions on illegal trade ................................................................................................................... 261
Article 5: Special situation of developing countries ................................................................................ 271
Decisions on definitions and classification ........................................................................................ 271
Decisions on control measures ........................................................................................................... 277
Decisions on basic domestic needs .................................................................................................... 278
Decisions on review under paragraph 8 ............................................................................................. 284
Decisions on participation of developing countries ........................................................................... 286
Article 6: Assessment and review of control measures ........................................................................... 287
Decisions on establishment and organisation of assessment panels ................................................... 287
Decisions on appointment of co-chairs of assessment panels ............................................................ 313
Article 7: Reporting of data ..................................................................................................................... 319
Decisions on data-reporting formats and methodologies ................................................................... 319
Decisions on trans-shipment of controlled substances ....................................................................... 323
Decisions on customs codes ............................................................................................................... 324
Decisions on changes in baseline data ............................................................................................... 326
Decisions on compliance with data-reporting requirements: general................................................. 332
Decisions on compliance with data-reporting requirements: base-year and baseline data ................. 343
Article 8: Non-compliance....................................................................................................................... 348
Decisions on non-compliance procedure ........................................................................................... 348
Decisions on the Implementation Committee .................................................................................... 353
Decisions on non-compliance: Albania .............................................................................................. 360
Decisions on non-compliance: Argentina .......................................................................................... 361
Decisions on non-compliance: Armenia ............................................................................................ 362
Decisions on non-compliance: Azerbaijan ......................................................................................... 364
Decisions on non-compliance: Bahamas ............................................................................................ 367
Decisions on non-compliance: Bangladesh ........................................................................................ 368
Decisions on non-compliance: Belarus .............................................................................................. 370
Decisions on non-compliance: Belize ................................................................................................ 372
Decisions on non-compliance: Bolivia............................................................................................... 373
Decisions on non-compliance: Bosnia and Herzegovina ................................................................... 375
Decisions on non-compliance: Botswana........................................................................................... 379
Decisions on non-compliance: Bulgaria............................................................................................. 380
Decisions on non-compliance: Cameroon .......................................................................................... 380
Decisions on non-compliance: Chile .................................................................................................. 383
Decisions on non-compliance: China ................................................................................................. 385
Decisions on non-compliance: Czech Republic ................................................................................. 385
Decisions on non-compliance: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea ........................................... 386
v
CONTENTS
Contents
Decisions on non-compliance: Democratic Republic of the Congo ................................................... 388

Decisions on non-compliance: Dominica........................................................................................... 389
Decisions on non-compliance: Ecuador ............................................................................................. 390
Decisions on non-compliance: Eritrea ............................................................................................... 393
Decisions on non-compliance: Estonia .............................................................................................. 393
Decisions on non-compliance: Ethiopia ............................................................................................. 394
Decisions on non-compliance: European Union ................................................................................ 396
Decisions on non-compliance: Federated States of Micronesia ......................................................... 396
Decisions on non-compliance: Fiji ..................................................................................................... 397
Decisions on non-compliance: France ............................................................................................... 399
Decisions on non-compliance: Greece ............................................................................................... 399
Decisions on non-compliance: Guatemala ......................................................................................... 401
Decisions on non-compliance: Guinea-Bissau ................................................................................... 404
Decisions on non-compliance: Haiti .................................................................................................. 405
Decisions on non-compliance: Honduras ........................................................................................... 406
Decisions on non-compliance: Islamic Republic of Iran.................................................................... 408
Decisions on non-compliance: Iraq .................................................................................................... 410
Decisions on non-compliance: Kazakhstan ........................................................................................ 411
Decisions on non-compliance: Kenya ................................................................................................ 414
Decisions on non-compliance: Kyrgyzstan ........................................................................................ 415
Decisions on non-compliance: Latvia ................................................................................................ 416
Decisions on non-compliance: Lesotho ............................................................................................. 418
Decisions on non-compliance: Libya ................................................................................................. 419
Decisions on non-compliance: Lithuania ........................................................................................... 424
Decisions on non-compliance: Maldives ........................................................................................... 425
Decisions on non-compliance: Mexico .............................................................................................. 427
Decisions on non-compliance: Morocco ............................................................................................ 429
Decisions on non-compliance: Namibia............................................................................................. 429
Decisions on non-compliance: Nepal ................................................................................................. 431
Decisions on non-compliance: Nigeria .............................................................................................. 433
Decisions on non-compliance: Oman................................................................................................. 434
Decisions on non-compliance: Pakistan ............................................................................................. 434
Decisions on non-compliance: Papua New Guinea............................................................................ 436
Decisions on non-compliance: Paraguay ........................................................................................... 437
Decisions on non-compliance: Peru ................................................................................................... 439
Decisions on non-compliance: Poland ............................................................................................... 439
Decisions on non-compliance: Qatar ................................................................................................. 440
Decisions on non-compliance: Republic of Korea ............................................................................. 441
Decisions on non-compliance: Russian Federation ............................................................................ 441
Decisions on non-compliance: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ..................................................... 446
Decisions on non-compliance: Saudi Arabia ..................................................................................... 448
Decisions on non-compliance: Serbia ................................................................................................ 451
Decisions on non-compliance: Sierra Leone ...................................................................................... 451
Decisions on non-compliance: Singapore .......................................................................................... 452
Decisions on non-compliance: Solomon Islands ................................................................................ 452
Decisions on non-compliance: Somalia ............................................................................................. 453
Decisions on non-compliance: Tajikistan .......................................................................................... 456
Decisions on non-compliance: Timor Leste ....................................................................................... 457
Decisions on non-compliance: Turkmenistan .................................................................................... 458
Decisions on non-compliance: Uganda .............................................................................................. 459
Decisions on non-compliance: Ukraine ............................................................................................. 461
Decisions on non-compliance: Uruguay ............................................................................................ 464
Decisions on non-compliance: Uzbekistan ........................................................................................ 466
Decisions on non-compliance: Vanuatu ............................................................................................. 467
Decisions on non-compliance: Viet Nam ........................................................................................... 468
Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties ............................................................................... 469
Article 9: Research, development, public awareness and exchange of information ................................ 474
Article 10: Financial mechanism ............................................................................................................. 476
Decisions on establishment of interim financial mechanism ............................................................. 476
Decisions on establishment of financial mechanism .......................................................................... 478
vi
CONTENTS
Contents
Decisions on replenishments of the Multilateral Fund, budgets and contributions ............................ 479
Decisions on the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism ............................................................................. 491
Decisions on the Executive Committee: membership ........................................................................ 496
Decisions on the Executive Committee: organisation ........................................................................ 503
Decisions on reviews and evaluations of the operation of the financial mechanism.......................... 505
Other decisions on the operation of the financial mechanism ............................................................ 515
Article 10A: Transfer of technology ........................................................................................................ 520
Article 11: Meetings of the Parties .......................................................................................................... 523
Decisions on meetings of the Parties .................................................................................................. 523
Decisions on declarations ................................................................................................................... 528
Decisions on rules of procedure ......................................................................................................... 529
Decisions on the Open-ended Working Group .................................................................................. 530
Decisions on the Bureau..................................................................................................................... 534
Article 12: Secretariat .............................................................................................................................. 535
Article 13: Financial provisions ............................................................................................................... 536
Article 14: Relationship of this Protocol to the Convention .................................................................... 557
Article 16: Entry into force ...................................................................................................................... 558
Article 19: Withdrawal ............................................................................................................................ 566
Other Decisions ....................................................................................................................................... 567
Decisions on climate change .............................................................................................................. 567
Decisions on the Global Environment Facility .................................................................................. 571
Decisions on aviation and the global atmosphere .............................................................................. 572
Decisions on the relationship of the Montreal Protocol with other international agreements and
institutions ......................................................................................................................... 573
Decisions on future challenges ........................................................................................................... 575
Section 3 Relevant Annexes to the Decisions of the Parties579

Destruction procedures ....................................................................................... 581
Approved destruction processes (2011) ................................................................................................... 581
Code of good housekeeping ..................................................................................................................... 581
Suggested substances for monitoring and declaration when using destruction technologies .................. 587
Essential use exemptions .................................................................................... 589

Essential-use exemptions approved by the Meetings of the Parties ......................................................... 589
Summary by year of essential use exemptions ........................................................................................ 591
Conditions applied to exemption for laboratory and analytical uses ....................................................... 592
Categories and examples of laboratory uses ............................................................................................ 592
Reporting Accounting Framework for Essential Uses other than Laboratory and Analytical Applications
....................................................................................................................................................... 594
Assessment panels .............................................................................................. 595

Terms of reference for the panels ............................................................................................................ 595
Terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options
committees and temporary subsidiary bodies ................................................................................ 597
Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide ...................................................... 606

Critical-use exemptions approved by Meetings of the Parties ................................................................. 606
Requirements for annual reporting of critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide ................................ 618
Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee ..................................................................................................................................... 624
Reporting accounting framework for critical uses of methyl bromide .................................................... 630
Non-Compliance procedure................................................................................. 631

Non-compliance procedure (1998) .......................................................................................................... 631
vii
CONTENTS
Contents
Indicative list of measures that might be taken by a meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance
with the Protocol............................................................................................................................ 633
The Multilateral Fund ........................................................................................... 634

Terms of reference for the Multilateral Fund........................................................................................... 634
Indicative list of categories of incremental costs ..................................................................................... 636
Terms of reference of the Executive Committee (1997) .......................................................................... 637
Rules of procedure for meetings of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund ......................... 639
Finance .................................................................................................................. 643

Terms of reference for the administration of the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer* ............................................................................................................. 643
UN scale of assessments .......................................................................................................................... 644
Declarations .......................................................................................................... 650

Helsinki Declaration on the protection of the ozone layer (1989) ........................................................... 650
Declaration on chlorofluorocarbons (1990) ............................................................................................. 650
Resolution on ozone-depleting substances (1990) ................................................................................... 651
Statement on control measures (1991) ..................................................................................................... 652
Resolution on methyl bromide (1992) ..................................................................................................... 652
Question of Yugoslavia (1992) ................................................................................................................ 653
Memorandum on partly halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) (1993) ........................................... 653
Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) (1993) .................................................................... 654
Declaration on methyl bromide (1993) .................................................................................................... 654
Declaration by countries with economies in transition (1993) ................................................................ 655
Declaration on the Multilateral Fund (1994) ........................................................................................... 655
Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) (1995) .................................................................... 657
Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (1997) .................................................................................... 658
Declaration regarding methyl bromide (1997)......................................................................................... 658
Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons
(PFCs) (1998) ................................................................................................................................ 659
Beijing Declaration on renewed commitment to the protection of the ozone layer (1999) ..................... 659
Ouagadougou Declaration at the Twelfth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (2000) ........ 661
Colombo Declaration on renewed commitment to the protection of the ozone layer to mark the
forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development, in 2002, the 15th anniversary of the
Montreal Protocol and the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Multilateral Fund (2001)
....................................................................................................................................................... 662
Declaration by the Pacific Island countries attending the 13th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol (2001) .............................................................................................................................. 663
Declaration on limitations on the consumption of methyl bromide (2004) ............................................. 664
Prague Declaration on enhancing cooperation among chemicals-related multilateral environmental
agreements (2004) ......................................................................................................................... 664
Montreal Declaration (2007) ................................................................................................................... 666
Doha Declaration (2008) ......................................................................................................................... 667
Declaration on High-GWP alternatives to ODSs (2009) ......................................................................... 669
Declaration on the global transition away from hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) (2010)............................................................................................... 670
Bali Declaration on Transitioning to Low Global Warming Potential Alternatives to Ozone Depleting
Substances (2011) .......................................................................................................................... 670
Section 4 Rules of Procedure ................................................... 673

Rules of procedure for Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol ....... 675
viii
CONTENTS
Contents
Section 5 The Evolution of the Montreal Protocol .................. 685

Introduction to the Montreal Protocol, its adjustments and amendments ...... 687
The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer .... 688
Preamble .................................................................................................................................................. 688
Article 1: Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 688
Article 2: Control Measures ..................................................................................................................... 689
Article 3: Calculation of control levels .................................................................................................... 691
Article 4: Control of trade with non-Parties............................................................................................. 691
Article 5: Special situation of developing countries ................................................................................ 692
Article 6: Assessment and review of control measures ........................................................................... 692
Article 7: Reporting of data ..................................................................................................................... 692
Article 8: Non-compliance....................................................................................................................... 692
Article 9: Research, development, public awareness and exchange of information ................................ 692
Article 10: Technical assistance............................................................................................................... 693
Article 11: Meetings of the parties........................................................................................................... 693
Article 12: Secretariat .............................................................................................................................. 694
Article 13: Financial provisions ............................................................................................................... 695
Article 14: Relationship of this Protocol to the Convention .................................................................... 695
Article 15: Signature ................................................................................................................................ 695
Article 16: Entry into force ...................................................................................................................... 695
Article 17: Parties joining after entry into force ...................................................................................... 695
Article 18: Reservations........................................................................................................................... 695
Article 19: Withdrawal ............................................................................................................................ 695
Article 20: Authentic texts ....................................................................................................................... 696
Annex A: Controlled substances .............................................................................................................. 696
Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol ................................................................ 697

Adjustments agreed at the Second Meeting of the Parties ....................................................................... 697
Adjustments agreed at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties ........................................................................ 698
Adjustments agreed at the Seventh Meeting of the Parties ...................................................................... 701
Adjustments agreed at the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.......................................................................... 703
Adjustments agreed at the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties..................................................................... 705
Adjustments agreed by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties ................................................................ 707
The London Amendment (1990) .......................................................................... 710

Article 1: Amendment ............................................................................................................................. 710
The Copenhagen Amendment (1992) ................................................................. 721

Article 2: Relationship to the 1990 Amendment...................................................................................... 730
The Montreal Amendment (1997) ........................................................................ 731

The Beijing Amendment (1999) ........................................................................... 733

ix
CONTENTS
Contents
Section 6 Sources of Further Information ............................... 737

Sources of further information ............................................................................ 739
Ozone Secretariat ..................................................................................................................................... 739
Multilateral Fund Secretariat ................................................................................................................... 740
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) .................................................................................. 740
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) ................................................................................. 740
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) ............................................................ 740
World Bank.............................................................................................................................................. 741
Global Environment Facility (GEF) ........................................................................................................ 741
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) .......................................................................................... 741
Scientific Assessment Panel Co-chairs .................................................................................................... 741
Environmental Effects Assessment Panel Co-chairs ............................................................................... 741
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Co-chairs ........................................................................ 741
General Index .............................................................................. 743
x
FOREWORD
Foreword
The year 2016 marks the twenty-ninth anniversary of the negotiations of

the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. In
September 1987, representatives of just forty-six countries gathered in
Montreal to agree the text of the first international agreement to apply
limits to the production and consumption of the main chemicals causing
the destruction of the Earth’s protective ozone layer.
Twenty-nine years later, we can appreciate just how solid were the
foundations laid then by those far-sighted men and women. Since the
Protocol’s entry into force in 1989, its Parties have continued to adapt
the regime it established in response to scientific evidence and
technological developments, with the Protocol being adjusted on six
occasions and amended on four. The regime it has established can lay claim to major achievements:
• Universal participation was achieved in 2009 – the first multilateral environmental agreement
ever to attain truly global participation.
• The production and consumption of the majority of harmful ozone-depleting chemicals has
been successfully phased out, in both developed and developing countries. Over 98 per cent of
the consumption of all ozone-depleting substances has now been phased out.
• Since its inception in 1991, the Multilateral Fund has approved activities, including industrial
conversion, technical assistance, training and capacity-building, worth over US $3.5 billion.
• And the Protocol is also one of the prime global contributors to the fight against climate
change, as most of the ozone-depleting substances it has phased out are also powerful
greenhouse gases.
This is an inspiring record, demonstrating emphatically the potential for success of global cooperation
in tackling a common threat.
Since 1991 the publication of the Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer has proved to be an invaluable reference source for the decisions which the Parties have
made in the process of developing the ozone regime. It includes the single text of the Protocol, as
adjusted and amended, together with all the decisions of the Meeting of the Parties that have taken
place since 1989, plus supporting information.
Over the years the Handbook has proved to be the essential reference book for the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol. It is my hope that this latest edition of the Handbook, which I commend to readers,
will prove just as useful as a repository of information on the implementation of the Montreal
Protocol.
Achim Steiner
Executive Director
xi
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Welcome to the tenth edition of the Handbook for the Montreal

Protocol.
The the Protocol, along with the Vienna Convention, achieved universal
participation, on 16 September 2009 – the first treaties of any kind in the
history of the United Nations system to achieve that aspiration.
This edition has been updated to include all relevant information from
1989–2015.
Section 1, which contains the text of the Montreal Protocol and a
summary guide to its control measures, of course remains unaltered.
Section 2, on decisions of the Meetings of the Parties, now includes all the decisions adopted up to the
twenty-seventh Meeting of the Parties.
Also updated is Section 3, which presents information from the relevant annexes to the decisions.
These cover destruction procedures for ozone-depleting substances, essential-use exemptions, and
critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide, approved by the Meetings of the Parties, the Assessment
Panels (especially their terms of reference), the non-compliance procedure of the Protocol, the
Multilateral Fund, finance, and declarations by the Parties.
Section 4, on the rules of procedure, remains unaltered.
Section 5 contains information on the evolution of the Montreal Protocol. This valuable historical
information on the original 1987 Montreal Protocol and the separate adjustments and amendments to
the Protocol that were adopted by the Meetings of the Parties in 1990, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1999 and
2007 is of interest in demonstrating how the ozone regime has evolved over time in line with
developing scientific knowledge and technological developments.
Finally, Section 6 contains updated sources of information and contact details for relevant
organizations.
As with the previous editions of the Handbook, the Handbook for the Vienna Convention is being
published separately, to keep the size of both volumes more manageable.
As ever, the Secretariat welcomes any suggestions for any further improvement of the format of this
Handbook in the future – especially in respect of the expanding volume of information that has to be
updated periodically and put together in a single volume.
Tina Birmpili
Executive Secretary, Ozone Secretariat
xiii
Section 1
The Montreal Protocol

Section 1.1
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
Deplete the Ozone Layer
as adjusted and amended by the Second Meeting of the Parties (London,

27–29 June 1990)
and by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties
(Copenhagen, 23–25 November 1992)
and further adjusted by the Seventh Meeting of the Parties
(Vienna, 5–7 December 1995)
and further adjusted and amended by the Ninth Meeting of the Parties
(Montreal, 15–17 September 1997)
and by the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties
(Beijing, 29 November – 3 December 1999)
and further adjusted by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties
(Montreal, 17–21 September 2007)
Preamble
The Parties to this Protocol,
Being Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer,
Mindful of their obligation under that Convention to take appropriate measures to protect human health and the
environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely
to modify the ozone layer,
Recognizing that world-wide emissions of certain substances can significantly deplete and otherwise modify the
ozone layer in a manner that is likely to result in adverse effects on human health and the environment,
Conscious of the potential climatic effects of emissions of these substances,
Aware that measures taken to protect the ozone layer from depletion should be based on relevant scientific
knowledge, taking into account technical and economic considerations,
Determined to protect the ozone layer by taking precautionary measures to control equitably total global
emissions of substances that deplete it, with the ultimate objective of their elimination on the basis of
developments in scientific knowledge, taking into account technical and economic considerations and bearing in
mind the developmental needs of developing countries,
Acknowledging that special provision is required to meet the needs of developing countries, including the
provision of additional financial resources and access to relevant technologies, bearing in mind that the
magnitude of funds necessary is predictable, and the funds can be expected to make a substantial difference in
the world’s ability to address the scientifically established problem of ozone depletion and its harmful effects,
Noting the precautionary measures for controlling emissions of certain chlorofluorocarbons that have already
been taken at national and regional levels,
Considering the importance of promoting international co-operation in the research, development and transfer of
alternative technologies relating to the control and reduction of emissions of substances that deplete the ozone
layer, bearing in mind in particular the needs of developing countries,
3
Section 1.1 The Montreal Protocol
HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1: Definitions
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
For the purposes of this Protocol:
1. “Convention” means the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, adopted on 22 March
1985.
2. “Parties” means, unless the text otherwise indicates, Parties to this Protocol.
3. “Secretariat” means the Secretariat of the Convention.
4. “Controlled substance” means a substance in Annex A, Annex B, Annex C or Annex E to this Protocol,
whether existing alone or in a mixture. It includes the isomers of any such substance, except as specified
in the relevant Annex, but excludes any controlled substance or mixture which is in a manufactured
product other than a container used for the transportation or storage of that substance.
5. “Production” means the amount of controlled substances produced, minus the amount destroyed by
technologies to be approved by the Parties and minus the amount entirely used as feedstock in the
manufacture of other chemicals. The amount recycled and reused is not to be considered as “production”.
6. “Consumption” means production plus imports minus exports of controlled substances.
7. “Calculated levels” of production, imports, exports and consumption means levels determined in
accordance with Article 3.
8. “Industrial rationalization” means the transfer of all or a portion of the calculated level of production of
one Party to another, for the purpose of achieving economic efficiencies or responding to anticipated
shortfalls in supply as a result of plant closures.
Article 2: Control Measures
1. Incorporated in Article 2A.
2. Replaced by Article 2B.
3. Replaced by Article 2A.
4. Replaced by Article 2A.
5. Any Party may, for one or more control periods, transfer to another Party any portion of its calculated
level of production set out in Articles 2A to 2F, and Article 2H, provided that the total combined
calculated levels of production of the Parties concerned for any group of controlled substances do not
exceed the production limits set out in those Articles for that group. Such transfer of production shall be
notified to the Secretariat by each of the Parties concerned, stating the terms of such transfer and the
period for which it is to apply.
5 bis. Any Party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 may, for one or more control periods, transfer to
another such Party any portion of its calculated level of consumption set out in Article 2F, provided that
the calculated level of consumption of controlled substances in Group I of Annex A of the Party
transferring the portion of its calculated level of consumption did not exceed 0.25 kilograms per capita in
1989 and that the total combined calculated levels of consumption of the Parties concerned do not exceed
the consumption limits set out in Article 2F. Such transfer of consumption shall be notified to the
Secretariat by each of the Parties concerned, stating the terms of such transfer and the period for which it
is to apply.
6. Any Party not operating under Article 5, that has facilities for the production of Annex A or Annex B
controlled substances under construction, or contracted for, prior to 16 September 1987, and provided for
4
in national legislation prior to 1 January 1987, may add the production from such facilities to its 1986
production of such substances for the purposes of determining its calculated level of production for 1986,
provided that such facilities are completed by 31 December 1990 and that such production does not raise
that Party’s annual calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances above 0.5 kilograms per
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
capita.
7. Any transfer of production pursuant to paragraph 5 or any addition of production pursuant to paragraph 6
shall be notified to the Secretariat, no later than the time of the transfer or addition.
8. (a) Any Parties which are Member States of a regional economic integration organization as defined in
Article 1 (6) of the Convention may agree that they shall jointly fulfil their obligations respecting
consumption under this Article and Articles 2A to 2I provided that their total combined calculated
level of consumption does not exceed the levels required by this Article and Articles 2A to 2I.
(b) The Parties to any such agreement shall inform the Secretariat of the terms of the agreement before
the date of the reduction in consumption with which the agreement is concerned.
(c) Such agreement will become operative only if all Member States of the regional economic
integration organization and the organization concerned are Parties to the Protocol and have notified
the Secretariat of their manner of implementation.
9. (a) Based on the assessments made pursuant to Article 6, the Parties may decide whether:
(i) Adjustments to the ozone depleting potentials specified in Annex A, Annex B, Annex C and/or
Annex E should be made and, if so, what the adjustments should be; and
(ii) Further adjustments and reductions of production or consumption of the controlled substances
should be undertaken and, if so, what the scope, amount and timing of any such adjustments
and reductions should be;
(b) Proposals for such adjustments shall be communicated to the Parties by the Secretariat at least six
months before the meeting of the Parties at which they are proposed for adoption;
(c) In taking such decisions, the Parties shall make every effort to reach agreement by consensus. If all
efforts at consensus have been exhausted, and no agreement reached, such decisions shall, as a last
resort, be adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of the Parties present and voting representing a
majority of the Parties operating under Paragraph 1 of Article 5 present and voting and a majority of
the Parties not so operating present and voting;
(d) The decisions, which shall be binding on all Parties, shall forthwith be communicated to the Parties
by the Depositary. Unless otherwise provided in the decisions, they shall enter into force on the
expiry of six months from the date of the circulation of the communication by the Depositary.
10. Based on the assessments made pursuant to Article 6 of this Protocol and in accordance with the
procedure set out in Article 9 of the Convention, the Parties may decide:
(a) whether any substances, and if so which, should be added to or removed from any annex to this
Protocol, and
(b) the mechanism, scope and timing of the control measures that should apply to those substances;
11. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in this Article and Articles 2A to 2I Parties may take more
stringent measures than those required by this Article and Articles 2A to 2I.
Introduction to the adjustments
The Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh and Nineteenth Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer decided, on the basis of assessments made pursuant to Article 6 of
the Protocol, to adopt adjustments and reductions of production and consumption of the controlled substances in
5
Annexes A, B, C and E to the Protocol as follows (the text here shows the cumulative effect of all the
adjustments):
Article 2A: CFCs

PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
1. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on the first day of the seventh
month following the date of entry into force of this Protocol, and in each twelve-month period thereafter,
its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A does not exceed
its calculated level of consumption in 1986. By the end of the same period, each Party producing one or
more of these substances shall ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not
exceed its calculated level of production in 1986, except that such level may have increased by no more
than ten per cent based on the 1986 level. Such increase shall be permitted only so as to satisfy the basic
domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization
between Parties.
2. Each Party shall ensure that for the period from 1 July 1991 to 31 December 1992 its calculated levels of
consumption and production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A do not exceed 150 per
cent of its calculated levels of production and consumption of those substances in 1986; with effect from
1 January 1993, the twelve-month control period for these controlled substances shall run from 1 January
to 31 December each year.
3. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 1994, and in each
twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group
I of Annex A does not exceed, annually, twenty-five per cent of its calculated level of consumption in
1986. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed, annually, twenty-five per cent of its
calculated level of production in 1986. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit
by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986.
I of Annex A does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the
same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed zero.
However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by a quantity equal to the annual
average of its production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A for basic domestic needs for
the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive. This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to
permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be
essential.
5. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2003 and in each
twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group I
of Annex A for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 does not
exceed eighty per cent of the annual average of its production of those substances for basic domestic
needs for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive.
exceed fifty per cent of the annual average of its production of those substances for basic domestic needs
for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive.
exceed fifteen per cent of the annual average of its production of those substances for basic domestic
6
exceed zero.
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
9. For the purposes of calculating basic domestic needs under paragraphs 4 to 8 of this Article, the
calculation of the annual average of production by a Party includes any production entitlements that it has
transferred in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 2, and excludes any production entitlements that it
has acquired in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 2.
Article 2B: Halons
II of Annex A does not exceed, annually, its calculated level of consumption in 1986. Each Party
producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of
production of the substances does not exceed, annually, its calculated level of production in 1986.
Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated
level of production in 1986.
II of Annex A does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the
Article 5, its calculated level of production may, until 1 January 2002 exceed that limit by up to fifteen
per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986; thereafter, it may exceed that limit by a quantity
equal to the annual average of its production of the controlled substances in Group II of Annex A for
basic domestic needs for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive. This paragraph will apply save to the extent
that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses
agreed by them to be essential.
twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group II
exceed fifty per cent of the annual average of its production of those substances for basic domestic needs
for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive.
twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group II
exceed zero.
Article 2C: Other fully halogenated CFCs
1. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 1993, its calculated
level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex B does not exceed, annually,
eighty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1989. Each Party producing one or more of these
substances shall, for the same period, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does
not exceed, annually, eighty per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989. However, in order to
satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated
level of production may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production in
1989.
I of Annex B does not exceed, annually, twenty-five per cent of its calculated level of consumption in
7
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
I of Annex B does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the
Article 5, its calculated level of production may, until 1 January 2003 exceed that limit by up to fifteen
per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989; thereafter, it may exceed that limit by a quantity
equal to eighty per cent of the annual average of its production of the controlled substances in Group I of
Annex B for basic domestic needs for the period 1998 to 2000 inclusive. This paragraph will apply save
to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to
satisfy uses agreed by them to be essential.
of Annex B for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 does not
exceed fifteen per cent of the annual average of its production of those substances for basic domestic
of Annex B for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 does not
exceed zero.
Article 2D: Carbon tetrachloride
level of consumption of the controlled substance in Group II of Annex B does not exceed, annually,
fifteen per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1989. Each Party producing the substance shall,
for the same period, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed,
annually, fifteen per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989. However, in order to satisfy the
basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of
production may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989.
twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substance in Group
II of Annex B does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods,
ensure that its calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed zero. However, in order to
level of production may exceed that limit by up to fifteen per cent of its calculated level of production in
1989. This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production
or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be essential.
Article 2E: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform)
level of consumption of the controlled substance in Group III of Annex B does not exceed, annually, its
calculated level of consumption in 1989. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same period,
ensure that its calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed, annually, its calculated
level of production in 1989. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to ten per
cent of its calculated level of production in 1989.
8
III of Annex B does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1989.
Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of
production of the substance does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of production
in 1989. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
of Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated
III of Annex B does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods,
level of production may exceed that limit by up to fifteen per cent of its calculated level of production for
Article 2F: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, the sum of:
(a) Two point eight per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1989 of the controlled substances
in Group I of Annex A; and
(b) Its calculated level of consumption in 1989 of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C.
2. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
commencing on 1 January 2004, and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of
production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, the average of:
(a) The sum of its calculated level of consumption in 1989 of the controlled substances in Group I of
Annex C and two point eight per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1989 of the
controlled substances in Group I of Annex A; and
(b) The sum of its calculated level of production in 1989 of the controlled substances in Group I of
Annex C and two point eight per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989 of the controlled
substances in Group I of Annex A.
Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to fifteen per cent of its calculated
level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C as defined above.
3. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve month period commencing on 1 January 2004, and in each
I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, sixty-five per cent of the sum referred to in paragraph 1 of this
Article.
I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, twenty-five per cent of the sum referred to in paragraph 1 of this
Article. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed,
annually, twenty-five per cent of the calculated level referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. However,
in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its
calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of
production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C as referred to in paragraph 2.
9
I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, ten per cent of the sum referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.
Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
annually, ten per cent of the calculated level referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. However, in order
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated
level of production may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production of the
controlled substances in Group I of Annex C as referred to in paragraph 2.
I of Annex C does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the
same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of
Annex C does not exceed zero. However:
(a) Each Party may exceed that limit on consumption by up to zero point five per cent of the sum
referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article in any such twelve-month period ending before 1 January
2030, provided that such consumption shall be restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and
air-conditioning equipment existing on 1 January 2020;
(b) Each Party may exceed that limit on production by up to zero point five per cent of the average
referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article in any such twelve-month period ending before 1 January
2030, provided that such production shall be restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and
air-conditioning equipment existing on 1 January 2020.
7. As of 1 January 1996, each Party shall endeavour to ensure that:
(a) The use of controlled substances in Group I of Annex C is limited to those applications where other
more environmentally suitable alternative substances or technologies are not available;
(b) The use of controlled substances in Group I of Annex C is not outside the areas of application
currently met by controlled substances in Annexes A, B and C, except in rare cases for the
protection of human life or human health; and
(c) Controlled substances in Group I of Annex C are selected for use in a manner that minimizes ozone
depletion, in addition to meeting other environmental, safety and economic considerations.
Article 2G: Hydrobromofluorocarbons
Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 1996, and in each twelve-
month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group II of Annex C
does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated
level of production of the substances does not exceed zero. This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the
Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them
to be essential.
Article 2H: Methyl bromide
twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substance in Annex
E does not exceed, annually, its calculated level of consumption in 1991. Each Party producing the
substance shall, for the same period, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substance does
not exceed, annually, its calculated level of production in 1991. However, in order to satisfy the basic
domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of production
may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production in 1991.
2. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 1999, and in the
E does not exceed, annually, seventy-five per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1991. Each
Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of
10
the substance does not exceed, annually, seventy-five per cent of its calculated level of production in
1991. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
E does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1991. Each Party
producing the substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the
substance does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of production in 1991. However,
production in 1991.
E does not exceed, annually, thirty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1991. Each Party
substance does not exceed, annually, thirty per cent of its calculated level of production in 1991.
E does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed zero. However, in order to satisfy the
production may, until 1 January 2002 exceed that limit by up to fifteen per cent of its calculated level of
production in 1991; thereafter, it may exceed that limit by a quantity equal to the annual average of its
production of the controlled substance in Annex E for basic domestic needs for the period 1995 to 1998
inclusive. This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of
production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses.
5 bis. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2005 and in each
twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of production of the controlled substance in Annex E
for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 does not exceed
eighty per cent of the annual average of its production of the substance for basic domestic needs for the
period 1995 to 1998 inclusive.
5 ter. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2015 and in each
twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of production of the controlled substance in Annex E
for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 does not exceed zero.
6. The calculated levels of consumption and production under this Article shall not include the amounts
used by the Party for quarantine and pre-shipment applications.
Article 2I: Bromochloromethane
Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2002, and in each twelve-
month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption and production of the controlled substance in Group
III of Annex C does not exceed zero. This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to
permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be essential.
Article 3: Calculation of control levels
For the purposes of Articles 2, 2A to 2I and 5, each Party shall, for each group of substances in Annex A, Annex
B, Annex C or Annex E determine its calculated levels of:
11
(a) Production by:
(i) multiplying its annual production of each controlled substance by the ozone depleting potential
specified in respect of it in Annex A, Annex B, Annex C or Annex E;
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
(ii) adding together, for each such Group, the resulting figures;
(b) Imports and exports, respectively, by following, mutatis mutandis, the procedure set out in
subparagraph (a); and
(c) Consumption by adding together its calculated levels of production and imports and subtracting its
calculated level of exports as determined in accordance with subparagraphs (a) and (b). However,
beginning on 1 January 1993, any export of controlled substances to non-Parties shall not be
subtracted in calculating the consumption level of the exporting Party.
Article 4: Control of trade with non-Parties
1. As of 1 January 1990, each party shall ban the import of the controlled substances in Annex A from any
State not party to this Protocol.
1 bis. Within one year of the date of the entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the import of the
controlled substances in Annex B from any State not party to this Protocol.
1 ter. Within one year of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the import of any
controlled substances in Group II of Annex C from any State not party to this Protocol.
1 qua. Within one year of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the import of the
controlled substance in Annex E from any State not party to this Protocol.
1 quin. As of 1 January 2004, each Party shall ban the import of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C
from any State not party to this Protocol.
1 sex. Within one year of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the import of the
controlled substance in Group III of Annex C from any State not party to this Protocol.
2. As of 1 January 1993, each Party shall ban the export of any controlled substances in Annex A to any
2 bis. Commencing one year after the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the export
of any controlled substances in Annex B to any State not party to this Protocol.
2 ter. Commencing one year after the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the export
of any controlled substances in Group II of Annex C to any State not party to this Protocol.
2 qua. Commencing one year of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the export of
the controlled substance in Annex E to any State not party to this Protocol.
2 quin. As of 1 January 2004, each Party shall ban the export of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C
to any State not party to this Protocol.
2 sex. Within one year of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the export of the
controlled substance in Group III of Annex C to any State not party to this Protocol.
3. By 1 January 1992, the Parties shall, following the procedures in Article 10 of the Convention, elaborate
in an annex a list of products containing controlled substances in Annex A. Parties that have not objected
to the annex in accordance with those procedures shall ban, within one year of the annex having become
effective, the import of those products from any State not party to this Protocol.
12
3 bis. Within three years of the date of the entry into force of this paragraph, the Parties shall, following the
procedures in Article 10 of the Convention, elaborate in an annex a list of products containing controlled
substances in Annex B. Parties that have not objected to the annex in accordance with those procedures
shall ban, within one year of the annex having become effective, the import of those products from any
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
3 ter. Within three years of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, the Parties shall, following the
procedures in Article 10 of the Convention, elaborate in an annex a list of products containing controlled
substances in Group II of Annex C. Parties that have not objected to the annex in accordance with those
procedures shall ban, within one year of the annex having become effective, the import of those products
from any State not party to this Protocol.
4. By 1 January 1994, the Parties shall determine the feasibility of banning or restricting, from States not
party to this Protocol, the import of products produced with, but not containing, controlled substances in
Annex A. If determined feasible, the Parties shall, following the procedures in Article 10 of the
Convention, elaborate in an annex a list of such products. Parties that have not objected to the annex in
accordance with those procedures shall ban or restrict, within one year of the annex having become
effective, the import of those products from any State not party to this Protocol.
4 bis. Within five years of the date of the entry into force of this paragraph, the Parties shall determine the
feasibility of banning or restricting, from States not party to this Protocol, the import of products
produced with, but not containing, controlled substances in Annex B. If determined feasible, the Parties
shall, following the procedures in Article 10 of the Convention, elaborate in an annex a list of such
products. Parties that have not objected to the annex in accordance with those procedures shall ban or
restrict, within one year of the annex having become effective, the import of those products from any
4 ter. Within five years of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, the Parties shall determine the
produced with, but not containing, controlled substances in Group II of Annex C. If determined feasible,
the Parties shall, following the procedures in Article 10 of the Convention, elaborate in an annex a list of
such products. Parties that have not objected to the annex in accordance with those procedures shall ban
or restrict, within one year of the annex having become effective, the import of those products from any
5. Each Party undertakes to the fullest practicable extent to discourage the export to any State not party to
this Protocol of technology for producing and for utilizing controlled substances in Annexes A, B, C and
E.
6. Each Party shall refrain from providing new subsidies, aid, credits, guarantees or insurance programmes
for the export to States not party to this Protocol of products, equipment, plants or technology that would
facilitate the production of controlled substances in Annexes A, B, C and E.
7. Paragraphs 5 and 6 shall not apply to products, equipment, plants or technology that improve the
containment, recovery, recycling or destruction of controlled substances, promote the development of
alternative substances, or otherwise contribute to the reduction of emissions of controlled substances in
Annexes A, B, C and E.
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, imports and exports referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 ter of
this Article may be permitted from, or to, any State not party to this Protocol, if that State is determined,
by a meeting of the Parties, to be in full compliance with Article 2, Articles 2A to 2I and this Article, and
have submitted data to that effect as specified in Article 7.
9. For the purposes of this Article, the term “State not party to this Protocol” shall include, with respect to a
particular controlled substance, a State or regional economic integration organization that has not agreed
to be bound by the control measures in effect for that substance.
10. By 1 January 1996, the Parties shall consider whether to amend this Protocol in order to extend the
measures in this Article to trade in controlled substances in Group I of Annex C and in Annex E with
States not party to the Protocol.
13
Article 4A: Control of trade with Parties
1. Where, after the phase-out date applicable to it for a controlled substance, a Party is unable, despite
having taken all practicable steps to comply with its obligation under the Protocol, to cease production of
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
that substance for domestic consumption, other than for uses agreed by the Parties to be essential, it shall
ban the export of used, recycled and reclaimed quantities of that substance, other than for the purpose of
destruction.
2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply without prejudice to the operation of Article 11 of the Convention
and the non-compliance procedure developed under Article 8 of the Protocol.
Article 4B: Licensing
1. Each Party shall, by 1 January 2000 or within three months of the date of entry into force of this Article
for it, whichever is the later, establish and implement a system for licensing the import and export of new,
used, recycled and reclaimed controlled substances in Annexes A, B, C and E.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this Article, any Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 which
decides it is not in a position to establish and implement a system for licensing the import and export of
controlled substances in Annexes C and E, may delay taking those actions until 1 January 2005 and 1
January 2002, respectively.
3. Each Party shall, within three months of the date of introducing its licensing system, report to the
Secretariat on the establishment and operation of that system.
4. The Secretariat shall periodically prepare and circulate to all Parties a list of the Parties that have reported
to it on their licensing systems and shall forward this information to the Implementation Committee for
consideration and appropriate recommendations to the Parties.
Article 5: Special situation of developing countries
1. Any Party that is a developing country and whose annual calculated level of consumption of the
controlled substances in Annex A is less than 0.3 kilograms per capita on the date of the entry into force
of the Protocol for it, or any time thereafter until 1 January 1999, shall, in order to meet its basic domestic
needs, be entitled to delay for ten years its compliance with the control measures set out in Articles 2A to
2E, provided that any further amendments to the adjustments or Amendment adopted at the Second
Meeting of the Parties in London, 29 June 1990, shall apply to the Parties operating under this paragraph
after the review provided for in paragraph 8 of this Article has taken place and shall be based on the
conclusions of that review.
1 bis. The Parties shall, taking into account the review referred to in paragraph 8 of this Article, the assessments
made pursuant to Article 6 and any other relevant information, decide by 1 January 1996, through the
procedure set forth in paragraph 9 of Article 2:
(a) With respect to paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2F, what base year, initial levels, control schedules and
phase-out date for consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C will apply to
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of this Article;
(b) With respect to Article 2G, what phase-out date for production and consumption of the controlled
substances in Group II of Annex C will apply to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of this Article;
and
(c) With respect to Article 2H, what base year, initial levels and control schedules for consumption and
production of the controlled substance in Annex E will apply to Parties operating under paragraph 1
of this Article.
2. However, any Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall exceed neither an annual calculated
level of consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A of 0.3 kilograms per capita nor an annual
calculated level of consumption of controlled substances of Annex B of 0.2 kilograms per capita.
14
3. When implementing the control measures set out in Articles 2A to 2E, any Party operating under
paragraph 1 of this Article shall be entitled to use:
(a) For controlled substances under Annex A, either the average of its annual calculated level of
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
consumption for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive or a calculated level of consumption of 0.3
kilograms per capita, whichever is the lower, as the basis for determining its compliance with the
control measures relating to consumption.
(b) For controlled substances under Annex B, the average of its annual calculated level of consumption
for the period 1998 to 2000 inclusive or a calculated level of consumption of 0.2 kilograms per
capita, whichever is the lower, as the basis for determining its compliance with the control measures
relating to consumption.
(c) For controlled substances under Annex A, either the average of its annual calculated level of
production for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive or a calculated level of production of 0.3 kilograms
per capita, whichever is the lower, as the basis for determining its compliance with the control
measures relating to production.
(d) For controlled substances under Annex B, either the average of its annual calculated level of
production for the period 1998 to 2000 inclusive or a calculated level of production of 0.2 kilograms
per capita, whichever is the lower, as the basis for determining its compliance with the control
measures relating to production.
4. If a Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article, at any time before the control measures obligations
in Articles 2A to 2I become applicable to it, finds itself unable to obtain an adequate supply of controlled
substances, it may notify this to the Secretariat. The Secretariat shall forthwith transmit a copy of such
notification to the Parties, which shall consider the matter at their next Meeting, and decide upon
appropriate action to be taken.
5. Developing the capacity to fulfil the obligations of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of this Article
to comply with the control measures set out in Articles 2A to 2E and Article 2I, and any control measures
in Articles 2F to 2H that are decided pursuant to paragraph 1 bis of this Article, and their implementation
by those same Parties will depend upon the effective implementation of the financial co-operation as
provided by Article 10 and the transfer of technology as provided by Article 10A.
6. Any Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article may, at any time, notify the Secretariat in writing
that, having taken all practicable steps it is unable to implement any or all of the obligations laid down in
Articles 2A to 2E and Article 2I, or any or all obligations in Articles 2F to 2H that are decided pursuant to
paragraph 1 bis of this Article, due to the inadequate implementation of Articles 10 and 10A. The
Secretariat shall forthwith transmit a copy of the notification to the Parties, which shall consider the
matter at their next Meeting, giving due recognition to paragraph 5 of this Article and shall decide upon
appropriate action to be taken.
7. During the period between notification and the Meeting of the Parties at which the appropriate action
referred to in paragraph 6 above is to be decided, or for a further period if the Meeting of the Parties so
decides, the non-compliance procedures referred to in Article 8 shall not be invoked against the notifying
Party.
8. A Meeting of the Parties shall review, not later than 1995, the situation of the Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of this Article, including the effective implementation of financial co-operation and transfer
of technology to them, and adopt such revisions that may be deemed necessary regarding the schedule of
control measures applicable to those Parties.
8 bis. Based on the conclusions of the review referred to in paragraph 8 above:
(a) With respect to the controlled substances in Annex A, a Party operating under paragraph 1 of this
Article shall, in order to meet its basic domestic needs, be entitled to delay for ten years its
compliance with the control measures adopted by the Second Meeting of the Parties in London, 29
June 1990, and reference by the Protocol to Articles 2A and 2B shall be read accordingly;
15
(b) With respect to the controlled substances in Annex B, a Party operating under paragraph 1 of this
June 1990, and reference by the Protocol to Articles 2C to 2E shall be read accordingly.
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
8 ter. Pursuant to paragraph 1 bis above:
(a) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, the
average of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 2010. Each Party operating under
paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January
2013 and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of production of the controlled
substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, the average of its calculated levels of
production in 2009 and 2010;
(b) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, ninety
per cent of the average of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 2010. Each such Party
producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated
level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually,
ninety per cent of the average of its calculated levels of production in 2009 and 2010;
(c) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, sixty-
five per cent of the average of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 2010. Each such
Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
annually, sixty-five per cent of the average of its calculated levels of production in 2009 and 2010;
(d) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, thirty-
two point five per cent of the average of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 2010. Each
such Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
annually, thirty-two point five per cent of the average of its calculated levels of production in 2009
and 2010;
(e) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed zero. Each such
calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed
zero. However:
(i) Each such Party may exceed that limit on consumption in any such twelve-month period so
long as the sum of its calculated levels of consumption over the ten-year period from 1 January
2030 to 1 January 2040, divided by ten, does not exceed two point five per cent of the average
of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 2010, and provided that such consumption
shall be restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment existing on 1
January 2030;
(ii) Each such Party may exceed that limit on production in any such twelve-month period so long
as the sum of its calculated levels of production over the ten-year period from 1 January 2030
to 1 January 2040, divided by ten, does not exceed two point five per cent of the average of its
calculated levels of production in 2009 and 2010, and provided that such production shall be
16
restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment existing on 1 January

2030.
(f) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall comply with Article 2G;
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
(g) With regard to the controlled substance contained in Annex E:
(i) As of 1 January 2002 each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall comply with
the control measures set out in paragraph 1 of Article 2H and, as the basis for its compliance
with these control measures, it shall use the average of its annual calculated level of
consumption and production, respectively, for the period of 1995 to 1998 inclusive;
(ii) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month
period commencing on 1 January 2005, and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its
calculated levels of consumption and production of the controlled substance in Annex E do not
exceed, annually, eighty per cent of the average of its annual calculated levels of consumption
and production, respectively, for the period of 1995 to 1998 inclusive;
(iii) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month
period commencing on 1 January 2015 and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its
exceed zero. This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the
level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be
critical uses;
(iv) The calculated levels of consumption and production under this subparagraph shall not include
the amounts used by the Party for quarantine and pre-shipment applications.
9. Decisions of the Parties referred to in paragraph 4, 6 and 7 of this Article shall be taken according to the
same procedure applied to decision-making under Article 10.
Article 6: Assessment and review of control measures
Beginning in 1990, and at least every four years thereafter, the Parties shall assess the control measures provided
for in Article 2 and Articles 2A to 2I on the basis of available scientific, environmental, technical and economic
information. At least one year before each assessment, the Parties shall convene appropriate panels of experts
qualified in the fields mentioned and determine the composition and terms of reference of any such panels.
Within one year of being convened, the panels will report their conclusions, through the Secretariat, to the
Parties.
Article 7: Reporting of data
1. Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat, within three months of becoming a Party, statistical data on its
production, imports and exports of each of the controlled substances in Annex A for the year 1986, or the
best possible estimates of such data where actual data are not available.
2. Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat statistical data on its production, imports and exports of each
of the controlled substances
– in Annex B and Groups I and II of Annex C for the year 1989;
– in Annex E, for the year 1991,
or the best possible estimates of such data where actual data are not available, not later than three months
after the date when the provisions set out in the Protocol with regard to the substances in Annexes B, C
and E respectively enter into force for that Party.
17
3. Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat statistical data on its annual production (as defined in
paragraph 5 of Article 1) of each of the controlled substances listed in Annexes A, B, C and E and,
separately, for each substance,
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
– Amounts used for feedstocks,
– Amounts destroyed by technologies approved by the Parties, and
– Imports from and exports to Parties and non-Parties respectively,
for the year during which provisions concerning the substances in Annexes A, B, C and E respectively
entered into force for that Party and for each year thereafter. Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat
statistical data on the annual amount of the controlled substance listed in Annex E used for quarantine and
pre-shipment applications. Data shall be forwarded not later than nine months after the end of the year to
which the data relate.
3 bis. Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat separate statistical data of its annual imports and exports of
each of the controlled substances listed in Group II of Annex A and Group I of Annex C that have been
recycled.
4. For Parties operating under the provisions of paragraph 8 (a) of Article 2, the requirements in paragraphs
1, 2, 3 and 3 bis of this Article in respect of statistical data on imports and exports shall be satisfied if the
regional economic integration organization concerned provides data on imports and exports between the
organization and States that are not members of that organization.
Article 8: Non-compliance
The Parties, at their first meeting, shall consider and approve procedures and institutional mechanisms for
determining non-compliance with the provisions of this Protocol and for treatment of Parties found to be in non-
compliance.
Article 9: Research, development, public awareness and exchange of

information
1. The Parties shall co-operate, consistent with their national laws, regulations and practices and taking into
account in particular the needs of developing countries, in promoting, directly or through competent
international bodies, research, development and exchange of information on:
(a) best technologies for improving the containment, recovery, recycling, or destruction of controlled
substances or otherwise reducing their emissions;
(b) possible alternatives to controlled substances, to products containing such substances, and to
products manufactured with them; and
(c) costs and benefits of relevant control strategies.
2. The Parties, individually, jointly or through competent international bodies, shall co-operate in promoting
public awareness of the environmental effects of the emissions of controlled substances and other
substances that deplete the ozone layer.
3. Within two years of the entry into force of this Protocol and every two years thereafter, each Party shall
submit to the Secretariat a summary of the activities it has conducted pursuant to this Article.
Article 10: Financial mechanism
1. The Parties shall establish a mechanism for the purposes of providing financial and technical co-
operation, including the transfer of technologies, to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of
this Protocol to enable their compliance with the control measures set out in Articles 2A to 2E and Article
18
2I, and any control measures in Articles 2F to 2H that are decided pursuant to paragraph 1 bis of Article 5
of the Protocol. The mechanism, contributions to which shall be additional to other financial transfers to
Parties operating under that paragraph, shall meet all agreed incremental costs of such Parties in order to
enable their compliance with the control measures of the Protocol. An indicative list of the categories of
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
incremental costs shall be decided by the meeting of the Parties.
2. The mechanism established under paragraph 1 shall include a Multilateral Fund. It may also include other
means of multilateral, regional and bilateral co-operation.
3. The Multilateral Fund shall:
(a) Meet, on a grant or concessional basis as appropriate, and according to criteria to be decided upon
by the Parties, the agreed incremental costs;
(b) Finance clearing-house functions to:
(i) Assist Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, through country specific studies and
other technical co-operation, to identify their needs for co-operation;
(ii) Facilitate technical co-operation to meet these identified needs;
(iii) Distribute, as provided for in Article 9, information and relevant materials, and hold
workshops, training sessions, and other related activities, for the benefit of Parties that are
developing countries; and
(iv) Facilitate and monitor other multilateral, regional and bilateral co-operation available to Parties
that are developing countries;
(c) Finance the secretarial services of the Multilateral Fund and related support costs.
4. The Multilateral Fund shall operate under the authority of the Parties who shall decide on its overall
policies.
5. The Parties shall establish an Executive Committee to develop and monitor the implementation of
specific operational policies, guidelines and administrative arrangements, including the disbursement of
resources, for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the Multilateral Fund. The Executive Committee
shall discharge its tasks and responsibilities, specified in its terms of reference as agreed by the Parties,
with the co-operation and assistance of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(World Bank), the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Development
Programme or other appropriate agencies depending on their respective areas of expertise. The members
of the Executive Committee, which shall be selected on the basis of a balanced representation of the
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and of the Parties not so operating, shall be endorsed by
the Parties.
6. The Multilateral Fund shall be financed by contributions from Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 in convertible currency or, in certain circumstances, in kind and/or in national currency, on the
basis of the United Nations scale of assessments. Contributions by other Parties shall be encouraged.
Bilateral and, in particular cases agreed by a decision of the Parties, regional co-operation may, up to a
percentage and consistent with any criteria to be specified by decision of the Parties, be considered as a
contribution to the Multilateral Fund, provided that such co-operation, as a minimum:
(a) Strictly relates to compliance with the provisions of this Protocol;
(b) Provides additional resources; and
(c) Meets agreed incremental costs.
7. The Parties shall decide upon the programme budget of the Multilateral Fund for each fiscal period and
upon the percentage of contributions of the individual Parties thereto.
19
8. Resources under the Multilateral Fund shall be disbursed with the concurrence of the beneficiary Party.
9. Decisions by the Parties under this Article shall be taken by consensus whenever possible. If all efforts at
consensus have been exhausted and no agreement reached, decisions shall be adopted by a two-thirds
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
majority vote of the Parties present and voting, representing a majority of the Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 present and voting and a majority of the Parties not so operating present and
voting.
10. The financial mechanism set out in this Article is without prejudice to any future arrangements that may
be developed with respect to other environmental issues.
Article 10A: Transfer of technology
Each Party shall take every practicable step, consistent with the programmes supported by the financial
mechanism, to ensure:
(a) that the best available, environmentally safe substitutes and related technologies are expeditiously
transferred to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5; and
(b) that the transfers referred to in subparagraph (a) occur under fair and most favourable conditions.
Article 11: Meetings of the parties
1. The Parties shall hold meetings at regular intervals. The Secretariat shall convene the first meeting of the
Parties not later than one year after the date of the entry into force of this Protocol and in conjunction
with a meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, if a meeting of the latter is scheduled
within that period.
2. Subsequent ordinary meetings of the parties shall be held, unless the Parties otherwise decide, in
conjunction with meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention. Extraordinary meetings of
the Parties shall be held at such other times as may be deemed necessary by a meeting of the Parties, or at
the written request of any Party, provided that within six months of such a request being communicated to
them by the Secretariat, it is supported by at least one third of the Parties.
3. The Parties, at their first meeting, shall:
(a) adopt by consensus rules of procedure for their meetings;
(b) adopt by consensus the financial rules referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 13;
(c) establish the panels and determine the terms of reference referred to in Article 6;
(d) consider and approve the procedures and institutional mechanisms specified in Article 8; and
(e) begin preparation of workplans pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 10.
[The Article 10 in question is that of the original Protocol adopted in 1987.]
4. The functions of the meetings of the Parties shall be to:
(a) review the implementation of this Protocol;
(b) decide on any adjustments or reductions referred to in paragraph 9 of Article 2;
(c) decide on any addition to, insertion in or removal from any annex of substances and on related
control measures in accordance with paragraph 10 of Article 2;
(d) establish, where necessary, guidelines or procedures for reporting of information as provided for in
Article 7 and paragraph 3 of Article 9;
20
(e) review requests for technical assistance submitted pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 10;
(f) review reports prepared by the secretariat pursuant to subparagraph (c) of Article 12;
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
(g) assess, in accordance with Article 6, the control measures;
(h) consider and adopt, as required, proposals for amendment of this Protocol or any annex and for any
new annex;
(i) consider and adopt the budget for implementing this Protocol; and
(j) consider and undertake any additional action that may be required for the achievement of the
purposes of this Protocol.
5. The United Nations, its specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as any
State not party to this Protocol, may be represented at meetings of the Parties as observers. Any body or
agency, whether national or international, governmental or non-governmental, qualified in fields relating
to the protection of the ozone layer which has informed the secretariat of its wish to be represented at a
meeting of the Parties as an observer may be admitted unless at least one third of the Parties present
object. The admission and participation of observers shall be subject to the rules of procedure adopted by
the Parties.
Article 12: Secretariat
For the purposes of this Protocol, the Secretariat shall:
(a) arrange for and service meetings of the Parties as provided for in Article 11;
(b) receive and make available, upon request by a Party, data provided pursuant to Article 7;
(c) prepare and distribute regularly to the Parties reports based on information received pursuant to
Articles 7 and 9;
(d) notify the Parties of any request for technical assistance received pursuant to Article 10 so as to
facilitate the provision of such assistance;
(e) encourage non-Parties to attend the meetings of the Parties as observers and to act in accordance
with the provisions of this Protocol;
(f) provide, as appropriate, the information and requests referred to in subparagraphs (c) and (d) to such
non-party observers; and
(g) perform such other functions for the achievement of the purposes of this Protocol as may be
assigned to it by the Parties.
Article 13: Financial provisions
1. The funds required for the operation of this Protocol, including those for the functioning of the Secretariat
related to this Protocol, shall be charged exclusively against contributions from the Parties.
2. The Parties, at their first meeting, shall adopt by consensus financial rules for the operation of this
Protocol.
Article 14: Relationship of this Protocol to the Convention
Except as otherwise provided in this Protocol, the provisions of the Convention relating to its protocols shall
apply to this Protocol.
21
Article 15: Signature
This Protocol shall be open for signature by States and by regional economic integration organizations in
Montreal on 16 September 1987, in Ottawa from 17 September 1987 to 16 January 1988, and at United Nations
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
Headquarters in New York from 17 January 1988 to 15 September 1988.
Article 16: Entry into force
1. This Protocol shall enter into force on 1 January 1989, provided that at least eleven instruments of
ratification, acceptance, approval of the Protocol or accession thereto have been deposited by States or
regional economic integration organizations representing at least two-thirds of 1986 estimated global
consumption of the controlled substances, and the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the
Convention have been fulfilled. In the event that these conditions have not been fulfilled by that date, the
Protocol shall enter into force on the ninetieth day following the date on which the conditions have been
fulfilled.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, any such instrument deposited by a regional economic integration
organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by member States of such organization.
3. After the entry into force of this Protocol, any State or regional economic integration organization shall
become a Party to it on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of its instrument of ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession.
Article 17: Parties joining after entry into force
Subject to Article 5, any State or regional economic integration organization which becomes a Party to this
Protocol after the date of its entry into force, shall fulfil forthwith the sum of the obligations under Article 2, as
well as under Articles 2A to 2I and Article 4, that apply at that date to the States and regional economic
integration organizations that became Parties on the date the Protocol entered into force.
Article 18: Reservations
No reservations may be made to this Protocol.
Article 19: Withdrawal
Any Party may withdraw from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary at any time after
four years of assuming the obligations specified in paragraph 1 of Article 2A. Any such withdrawal shall take
effect upon expiry of one year after the date of its receipt by the Depositary, or on such later date as may be
specified in the notification of the withdrawal.
Article 20: Authentic texts
The original of this Protocol, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are
equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING DULY AUTHORIZED TO THAT EFFECT, HAVE
SIGNED THIS PROTOCOL.
DONE AT MONTREAL THIS SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
AND EIGHTY SEVEN.
22
Annex A: Controlled substances
Group Substance Ozone-Depleting Potential*

Group I
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
CFCl3 (CFC-11) 1.0
CF2Cl2 (CFC-12) 1.0
C2F3Cl3 (CFC-113) 0.8
C2F4Cl2 (CFC-114) 1.0
C2F5Cl (CFC-115) 0.6
Group II
CF2BrCl (halon-1211) 3.0
CF3Br (halon-1301) 10.0
C2F4Br2 (halon-2402) 6.0
* These ozone depleting potentials are estimates based on existing knowledge and will be reviewed and
revised periodically.
Annex B: Controlled substances
Group Substance Ozone-Depleting Potential

Group I
CF3Cl (CFC-13) 1.0
C2FCl5 (CFC-111) 1.0
C2F2Cl4 (CFC-112) 1.0
C3FCl7 (CFC-211) 1.0
C3F2Cl6 (CFC-212) 1.0
C3F3Cl5 (CFC-213) 1.0
C3F4Cl4 (CFC-214) 1.0
C3F5Cl3 (CFC-215) 1.0
C3F6Cl2 (CFC-216) 1.0
C3F7Cl (CFC-217) 1.0
Group II
CCl4 carbon tetrachloride 1.1
Group III
C2H3Cl3* 1,1,1-trichloroethane* 0.1
(methyl chloroform)
* This formula does not refer to 1,1,2-trichloroethane.
23
Annex C: Controlled substances
Number
of Ozone-Depleting
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
Group Substance isomers Potential*

Group I
CHFCl2 (HCFC-21)** 1 0.04
CHF2Cl (HCFC-22)** 1 0.055
CH2FCl (HCFC-31) 1 0.02
C2HFCl4 (HCFC-121) 2 0.01–0.04
C2HF2Cl3 (HCFC-122) 3 0.02–0.08
C2HF3Cl2 (HCFC-123) 3 0.02–0.06
CHCl2CF3 (HCFC-123)** – 0.02
C2HF4Cl (HCFC-124) 2 0.02–0.04
CHFClCF3 (HCFC-124)** – 0.022
C2H2FCl3 (HCFC-131) 3 0.007–0.05
C2H2F2Cl2 (HCFC-132) 4 0.008–0.05
C2H2F3Cl (HCFC-133) 3 0.02–0.06
C2H3FCl2 (HCFC-141) 3 0.005–0.07
CH3CFCl2 (HCFC-141b)** – 0.11
C2H3F2Cl (HCFC-142) 3 0.008–0.07
CH3CF2Cl (HCFC-142b)** – 0.065
C2H4FCl (HCFC-151) 2 0.003–0.005
C3HFCl6 (HCFC-221) 5 0.015–0.07
C3HF2Cl5 (HCFC-222) 9 0.01–0.09
C3HF3Cl4 (HCFC-223) 12 0.01–0.08
C3HF4Cl3 (HCFC-224) 12 0.01–0.09
C3HF5Cl2 (HCFC-225) 9 0.02–0.07
CF3CF2CHCl2 (HCFC-225ca)** – 0.025
CF2ClCF2CHClF (HCFC-225cb)** – 0.033
C3HF6Cl (HCFC-226) 5 0.02–0.10
C3H2FCl5 (HCFC-231) 9 0.05–0.09
C3H2F2Cl4 (HCFC-232) 16 0.008–0.10
C3H2F3Cl3 (HCFC-233) 18 0.007–0.23
C3H2F4Cl2 (HCFC-234) 16 0.01–0.28
C3H2F5Cl (HCFC-235) 9 0.03–0.52
C3H3FCl4 (HCFC-241) 12 0.004–0.09
C3H3F2Cl3 (HCFC-242) 18 0.005–0.13
C3H3F3Cl2 (HCFC-243) 18 0.007–0.12
C3H3F4Cl (HCFC-244) 12 0.009–0.14
C3H4FCl3 (HCFC-251) 12 0.001–0.01
C3H4F2Cl2 (HCFC-252) 16 0.005–0.04
C3H4F3Cl (HCFC-253) 12 0.003–0.03
C3H5FCl2 (HCFC-261) 9 0.002–0.02
C3H5F2Cl (HCFC-262) 9 0.002–0.02
C3H6FCl (HCFC-271) 5 0.001–0.03
Number
of Ozone-Depleting
Group II
CHFBr2 1 1.00
CHF2Br (HBFC-22B1) 1 0.74
CH2FBr 1 0.73
C2HFBr4 2 0.3–0.8
C2HF2Br3 3 0.5–1.8
C2HF3Br2 3 0.4–1.6
C2HF4Br 2 0.7–1.2
C2H2FBr3 3 0.1–1.1
C2H2F2Br2 4 0.2–1.5
C2H2F3Br 3 0.7–1.6
24
Number
of Ozone-Depleting
C2H3FBr2 3 0.1–1.7
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
C2H3F2Br 3 0.2–1.1
C2H4FBr 2 0.07–0.1
C3HFBr6 5 0.3–1.5
C3HF2Br5 9 0.2–1.9
C3HF3Br4 12 0.3–1.8
C3HF4Br3 12 0.5–2.2
C3HF5Br2 9 0.9–2.0
C3HF6Br 5 0.7–3.3
C3H2FBr5 9 0.1–1.9
C3H2F2Br4 16 0.2–2.1
C3H2F3Br3 18 0.2–5.6
C3H2F4Br2 16 0.3–7.5
C3H2F5Br 8 0.9–1.4
C3H3FBr4 12 0.08–1.9
C3H3F2Br3 18 0.1–3.1
C3H3F3Br2 18 0.1–2.5
C3H3F4Br 12 0.3–4.4
C3H4FBr3 12 0.03–0.3
C3H4F2Br2 16 0.1–1.0
C3H4F3Br 12 0.07–0.8
C3H5FBr2 9 0.04–0.4
C3H5F2Br 9 0.07–0.8
C3H6FBr 5 0.02–0.7
Group III
CH2BrCl bromochloromethane 1 0.12
* Where a range of ODPs is indicated, the highest value in that range shall be used for the purposes of the
Protocol. The ODPs listed as a single value have been determined from calculations based on laboratory
measurements. Those listed as a range are based on estimates and are less certain. The range pertains to
an isomeric group. The upper value is the estimate of the ODP of the isomer with the highest ODP, and
the lower value is the estimate of the ODP of the isomer with the lowest ODP.
** Identifies the most commercially viable substances with ODP values listed against them to be used for the
purposes of the Protocol.
25
Annex D:* A list of products** containing controlled substances specified

in Annex A
PROTOCOL
MONTREAL
Products Customs code number

1. Automobile and truck air conditioning units
(whether incorporated in vehicles or not) ...................
2. Domestic and commercial refrigeration and air
conditioning/heat pump equipment*** ...................
e.g. Refrigerators ...................
Freezers ...................
Dehumidifiers ...................
Water coolers ...................
Ice machines ...................
Air conditioning and heat pump units ...................
3. Aerosol products, except medical aerosols ...................
4. Portable fire extinguisher ...................
5. Insulation boards, panels and pipe covers ...................
6. Pre-polymers ...................
* This Annex was adopted by the Third Meeting of the Parties in Nairobi, 21 June 1991 as required by
paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Protocol.
** Though not when transported in consignments of personal or household effects or in similar non-
commercial situations normally exempted from customs attention.
*** When containing controlled substances in Annex A as a refrigerant and/or in insulating material of the
product.
Annex E: Controlled substance

Group I
CH3Br methyl bromide 0.6
26
Section 1.2
Summary of control measures under the
MEASURES
CONTROL
Montreal Protocol
This summary of control measures takes into account all the Amendments including the Beijing Amendment.
It may be noted that an Article 5(1) Party is a Party classified at a meeting of the Parties as a developing
country and whose annual per capita consumption of Annex A and Annex B substances are below the limits set
in Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol.
Annex A – Group I: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114 and CFC-115)
Applicable to production and consumption
Non-Article 5(1) Parties Article 5(1) Parties

Base level: 1986. Base Average of 1995–97.
level:
Freeze: July 1, 1989. Freeze: July 1, 1999.
75 per January 1, 1994. 50 per January 1, 2005.
cent: cent:
reduction reduction
100 per January 1, 1996 (with possible 85 per January 1, 2007.
cent: essential use exemptions). cent:
reduction reduction
100 per January 1, 2010 (with possible
cent: essential use exemptions).
reduction
27
Section 1.2 Summary of control measures under the Montreal Protocol
Annex A – Group II: Halons (halon 1211, halon 1301 and halon 2402)

MEASURES
CONTROL

Base level: 1986. Base level: Average of 1995–97.
Freeze: January 1, 1992. Freeze: January 1, 2002.
100 per January 1, 1994 (with possible 50 per cent: January 1, 2005.
cent: essential use exemptions). reduction
reduction
cent: essential use exemptions).
reduction
28
Annex B – Group I: Other fully halogenated CFCs (CFC-13, CFC-111, CFC-112, CFC-211,
CFC-212, CFC-213, CFC-214, CFC-215, CFC-216, CFC-217)
MEASURES
CONTROL
20 per January 1, 1993. 20 per cent: January 1, 2003.
cent: reduction
reduction
cent: reduction
reduction
100 per January 1, 1996 (with possible 100 per January 1, 2010 (with possible
cent: essential use exemptions). cent: essential use exemptions).
reduction reduction
29
Annex B – Group II: Carbon tetrachloride

MEASURES
CONTROL

cent: reduction
reduction
100 per January 1, 1996 (with possible 100 per cent: January 1, 2010 (with possible
cent: essential use exemptions). reduction essential use exemptions).
reduction
30
Annex B – Group III: 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
MEASURES
CONTROL
cent: reduction
reduction
100 per January 1, 1996 (with possible 70 per cent: January 1, 2010.
cent: essential use exemptions). reduction
reduction
100 per cent: January 1, 2015 (with possible
reduction essential use exemptions).
31
Annex C – Group I: HCFCs (consumption)
Non-Article 5(1) Parties: Consumption Article 5(1) Parties: Consumption

MEASURES
CONTROL
Base level: 1989 HCFC consumption + 2.8 Base level: Average 2009–10.
per cent of 1989 CFC
consumption.
Freeze: 1996. Freeze: January 1, 2013.
35 per cent: January 1, 2004. 10 per cent: January 1, 2015.
reduction reduction
reduction reduction
90 per cent: January 1, 2015. 67.5 per cent January 1, 2025.
reduction reduction
100 per cent: January 1, 2020, and thereafter, 100 per cent: January 1, 2030, and thereafter,
reduction allowance of 0.5 per cent of base reduction Allowance of 2.5 per cent of base
level consumption until January level consumption when averaged
1, 2030 for servicing of over ten years 2030-40 until
refrigeration and air-conditioning January 1, 2040 for servicing of
equipment existing on 1 January refrigeration and air conditioning
2020. equipment existing on 1 January
2030.
32
Annex C – Group I: HCFCs (production)
Non-Article 5(1) Parties: Production Article 5(1) Parties: Production
MEASURES
CONTROL
Base level: Average of 1989 HCFC Base level: Average 2009–10.
production + 2.8 per cent of 1989
CFC production and 1989 HCFC
consumption + 2.8 per cent of
1989 CFC consumption.
Freeze: January 1, 2004, at the base level Freeze: January 1, 2013.

for production.
10 per cent: January 1, 2015.
reduction

reduction reduction
90 per cent: January 1, 2015. 67.5 per cent January 1, 2025.

reduction reduction
100 per cent: January 1, 2020, and thereafter, 100 per cent: January 1, 2030, and thereafter,
reduction allowance of 0.5 per cent of base reduction allowance of 2.5 per cent of base
level production until January 1, level production when averaged
2030 for servicing of refrigeration over ten years 2030-40 until
and air-conditioning equipment January 1, 2040 for servicing of
existing on 1 January 2020. refrigeration and air conditioning
equipment existing on 1 January
2030.
33
Annex C – Group II: HBFCs

MEASURES
CONTROL

100 per January 1, 1996 (with possible 100 per January 1, 1996 (with possible
cent: essential use exemptions). cent: essential use exemptions).
reduction reduction
Annex C – Group III: Bromochloromethane

100 per cent: January 1, 2002 (with possible 100 per cent: January 1, 2002 (with possible
reduction essential use exemptions). reduction essential use exemptions).
34
Annex E – Group I: Methyl bromide
Applicable to production and consumption, amounts used for quarantine and preshipment applications
exempted.
MEASURES
CONTROL
Base level: 1991 Base level: Average of 1995–98
cent: reduction
reduction
50 per January 1, 2001. 100 per January 1, 2015 (with possible
cent: cent: critical use exemptions).
reduction reduction
70 per January 1, 2003.
cent:
reduction
cent: critical use exemptions).
reduction
35
Section 1.3
Allowance for production to meet the basic
MEASURES
CONTROL
domestic needs of Article 5(1) Parties
following the Montreal Adjustments in 2007
Note: With regard to the summary below, it appears as though the allowance for production to meet the basic
domestic needs of Article 5(1) Parties continues indefinitely after the date of the phase out (e.g. for Article 5(1)
Parties in the case of Annex A substances; for both Article 5(1) and non-Article 5(1) Parties in the case of Annex
B Group II and III substances). However, no Party can consume controlled substances, except for permitted
essential (or critical) uses, after the dates of phase-out for both Article 5(1) and non-Article 5(1) Parties. Hence,
no Party can produce controlled substances after such dates, except for essential uses.
36
Section 1.3 Allowance for production to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5(1) Parties following the Montreal Adjustments
in 2007
Annex A – Group I: CFCs
MEASURES
CONTROL
Base level: Production in 1986. Base level: Average of
production for
1995–1997 or 0.3
kg per capita
(whichever is
lower)
July 1, 1989 10 per cent of base level. July 1, 1999 10 per cent of base
level.
January 1, 1996 15 per cent of base level until 28 January 1, 2010 15 per cent of base
July 2000 (date of entry into force level.
of the Beijing Adjustments).
New base level for Annual average production for
basic domestic satisfying basic domestic needs of
needs Effective Article 5(1) Parties for the period
July 28, 2000 1995 to 1997 inclusive.
July 28, 2000 100 per cent of new base level for
satisfying basic domestic needs
until end of 2002.
January 1, 2003 80 per cent of new base level.
January 1, 2010 Zero.
Annex A – Group II: Halons

Base Level: Production in 1986. Base level: Average of production for
1995-1997 or 0.3 kg per
capita (whichever is lower).
January 1, 1992 10 per cent of base level. January 1, 10 per cent of base level.
2002
January 1, 1994 15 per cent of base level until January 1, 15 per cent of base level.
January 1, 2002. 2010
New base level for Annual average production
basic domestic for satisfying basic domestic
needs (Effective needs of Article 5(1) Parties
July 28, 2000) for the period 1995 to 1997
inclusive.
January 1, 2002 100 per cent of new base
level.
37
in 2007
Annex B – Group I: Other fully halogenated CFCs

MEASURES
CONTROL
Base level: Production in 1989. Base level: Average of production for

1998–2000 or 0.2 kg per
capita (whichever is lower).
January 1, 1993 10 per cent of base level. January 1, 2003 10 per cent of base level.
January 1, 1996 15 per cent of base level until January 1, 2010 15 per cent of base level.
1 January 2003.
basic domestic for basic domestic needs for
needs (Effective the period– 1998 to 2000
July 28, 2000)
January 1, 2003 80 per cent of the new base
level.
January 1, 2007 15 per cent of the new base
level.
January 1, 2010 Zero
Annex B – Group II: Carbon tetrachloride
Base level: Production in 1989: Base level: Average of production for

1998–2000 or 0.2 kg per
capita (whichever is
lower).
January 1, 1995 10 per cent of base level January 1, 2005 10 per cent of base level
January 1, 1996 15 per cent of base level January 1, 2010 15 per cent of base level
Annex B – Group III: 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)

Base level: Production in 1989. Base level: Average of production
for 1998–2000 or 0.2
kg per capita
(whichever is lower).
January 1, 1993 10 per cent of base level. January 1, 2003 10 per cent of base
level.
January 1, 1996 15 per cent of base level. January 1, 2015 15 per cent of base
level.
38
in 2007
Annex C – Group I: HCFCs
MEASURES
CONTROL
Base Level: Average of 1989 HCFC No additional production allowed for basic
production + 2.8 per cent of domestic needs.
1989 CFC production and
1989 HCFC consumption
+2.8 per cent of 1989 CFC
consumption.
January 1, 2004 15 per cent of base level.
January 1, 2020 Zero
Annex E – Group I: Methyl bromide

Base level: Production in 1991. Base level: Average of production
for 1995–1998
January 1, 1995 10 per cent of base level until January 1, 2002 10 per cent of base
July 28, 2000. level.
July 28, 2000 15 per cent of base level until January 1, 2005 Zero.
January 1, 2002.
basic domestic for basic domestic needs of
needs (effective Article 5(1) Parties for the
July 28, 2000) period 1995 to 1998
inclusive.
39
Section 2
Decisions of the
Meetings of the
Parties
to the
Montreal Protocol
Decisions of the Meetings of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol
This Section begins by listing the decisions adopted by each Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,
cross-referred to the related article(s) of the Protocol, together with the annexes to which they refer.
The remainder of Section 2 reproduces the texts of the decisions, organized by articles of the Protocol. Decisions
which are relevant to one or more Articles are reproduced, either in whole or in part, under each relevant
Article.
DECISIONS
MP
Those annexes and appendices to the decisions which are of lasting relevance can be found elsewhere in this
Handbook, mostly in Sections 3, together with other material relevant to the operation of the ozone regime. The
index below also indicates where these are printed.
Annexes and appendices which are not reproduced in this Handbook may be found in the reports of the Meetings
of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol available from the Ozone Secretariat or from the Secretariat’s website
at: ozone.unep.org.
43
Section 2 Decisions of the Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Index)
Index to the decisions
First Meeting of the Parties (Helsinki, 2–5 May 1989)
Decision Title Relevant article(s) Page

I/1 Rules of procedure for Meetings of the Parties 11 529
I/2 Establishment of Bureau 11 534
I/3 Establishment of Assessment Panels 6 287
I/4 Workplans required by Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol 9, 10A 474, 520
I/5 Establishment of Open-ended Working Group 6, 11 287, 530
I/6 Meetings of Open-ended Working Group 11 530
MP DECISIONS
I/7 Participation by non-Parties 11 530

I/8 Non-compliance 8 348
INDEX
I/9 ODP for halon 2402 2 171

I/10 Characteristics of relevant substances 6 287
I/11 Report and confidentiality of data 7 319
I/12A Clarification of terms and definitions: Controlled substances (in bulk) 1 85
I/12B Clarification of terms and definitions: Controlled substances produced 1 86
I/12C Clarification of terms and definitions: Basic domestic needs 5 278
I/12D Clarification of terms and definitions: Industrial rationalization 1 117
I/12E Clarification of terms and definitions: Developing countries 5 271
I/12F Clarification of terms and definitions: Destruction 1 87
I/12G Clarification of terms and definitions: Article 2, paragraph 6 2 239
I/12H Clarification of terms and definitions: Exports and imports of used 1 115
controlled substances
I/13 Assistance to developing countries 10 476
I/14 Financial arrangements 13 536
I/15 Helsinki Declaration 11 528
Annex Title Section of the Handbook Page

I Rules of procedure 4 675
II Terms of reference for the administration of the Trust Fund for the Montreal 3.7 643
Protocol
III Formula for voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund (not included)
IV Budget under the Montreal Protocol (not included)
V Composition of the panels (not included)
VI Terms of reference for the panels 3.3 595
VII Modification of the harmonized commodity description and coding system (not included)
in order to facilitate collection and comparison of data
App. I Helsinki Declaration on the protection of the ozone layer 3.8 650
44
Second Meeting of the Parties (London, 27–29 June 1990)

II/1 Adjustments and reductions 2 118
II/2 Amendment of the Protocol 14 557
II/3 Halons 2 171
II/4 Isomers 1 86
II/5 Non-compliance 8 348
II/6 Article 19 (Withdrawal) 19 566
II/7 Montreal Protocol Handbook 12 535
II/8 Financial mechanism 10 476
II/8A Budget for the Fund Secretariat 10 477
MP DECISIONS
II/8B Acceptance of the offer of Canada 10 477
INDEX
II/9 Data reporting 7 319
II/10 Data of developing countries 5 271
II/11 Destruction technologies 1 87
II/12 Customs Co-operation Council 7 324
II/13 Assessment panels 6 287
II/14 Workplans required by Article 9 and 10 of the Protocol 9, 10A 474, 520
II/15 Extension of the mandate of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties 4, 11 248, 530
II/16 Amendment of the Vienna Convention 14 557
II/17 Budget 13 536
II/18 Meetings of the Open-ended Working Group 11 530
II/19 Rules of procedure for Meetings of the Parties 11 529
II/20 Third Meeting of the Parties 11 523

I Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol 5.3 697
II Amendment to the Montreal Protocol 5.4 710
III Non-compliance procedure 3.5 631
IV Appendices to Decision II/8 (“financial mechanism”) (not included)
App. I Indicative list of categories of incremental costs
App. II Terms of reference of the Executive Committee for the Interim Multilateral Fund
App. III Multilateral Fund for the financial mechanism: scale of contributions
App. IV Terms of reference for the Interim Multilateral Fund
V Provisional budget for the Multilateral Fund Secretariat for 1991 (not included)
VI Revised budget under the Montreal Protocol for the year 1990 (not included)
VII Resolution on ozone-depleting substances by the Governments and 3.8 651
European Communities represented at the second Meeting of the Parties
45
Third Meeting of the Parties (Nairobi, 19–21 June 1991)

III/1 Adjustments and Amendment 2, 16 118, 558
III/2 Non-compliance procedures 8 348
III/3 Implementation Committee 5, 7, 8 271, 319, 353
III/4 Montreal Protocol Handbook 12 535
III/5 Definition of developing countries 5 272
III/6 Participation of developing countries 5 286
III/7 Data reporting 7 320
III/8 Trade names of controlled substances 1 86
III/9 Formats for reporting data under the amended Protocol 7 320
MP DECISIONS
III/10 Destruction technologies 1 87

INDEX
III/11 Open-ended Working Group of the Parties 11 531

III/12 Assessment Panels 2, 6 180, 288
III/13 Further adjustments to and amendments of the Montreal Protocol 5, 7 272, 323
III/14 Amendment of the rules of procedure 11 530
III/15 Annex to the Montreal Protocol 4 245
III/16 Trade issues 4 248
III/17 Amendment of the Vienna Convention 8 349
III/18 Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 523
III/19 Financial mechanism 10 478
III/20 Composition of the Implementation Committee 8 354
III/21 Budgets and financial matters 13 536
III/22 Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 479, 496,479

I Montreal Protocol Trust Fund budgets for the Secretariat revised 1991 and (not included)
1992 and 1993
II Pledged contributions by Parties towards the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund (not included)
for 1992 and 1993
III Status of contributions by Parties towards the Montreal Protocol Trust (not included)
Fund for 1990 and 1991
IV 1990 expenditures for the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol (not included)
V New Annex to the Montreal Protocol (Annex D) 1.1 26
VI Rules of procedure for meetings of the Executive Committee for the 3.6 639
Interim Multilateral Fund
VII Revised budget for the Fund Secretariat for 1991 (not included)
VIII Three year plan and budget for the Fund 1991–1993 (not included)
IX Three year budget for the Fund operations 1991–1993 (not included)
X Multilateral Fund for the financial mechanism: scale of contributions for (not included)
1991, 1992 and 1993
XI Formats for reporting data under the amended Montreal Protocol (not included)
46
Fourth Meeting of the Parties (Copenhagen, 23–25 November 1992)

IV/1 Amendment adopted by the Second Meeting of the Parties (London 16 558
Amendment)
IV/2 Further adjustments and reductions (Annex A) 2 118
IV/3 Further adjustments and reductions (Annex B) 2 118
IV/4 Further Amendment of the Protocol 14 557
IV/5 Non-compliance procedure 8 349
IV/6 Implementation Committee 8 354
IV/7 Definition of developing countries 5 273
IV/8 Participation of developing countries 5 286
MP DECISIONS
IV/9 Data and information reporting 7 320
INDEX
IV/10 Trade names of controlled substances 1 86
IV/11 Destruction technologies 1 87
IV/12 Clarification of the definition of controlled substances 1 86, 100
IV/13 Assessment panels 6 288
IV/14 Transshipment of controlled substances 7 323
IV/15 Situation whereby Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 exceed the 5 273
consumption limit set in that Article
IV/16 Annex D to the Montreal Protocol 4 245
IV/17A Trade issues 4 245
IV/17B Application to Colombia of paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the amended Montreal 4 240
Protocol
IV/17C Application of trade measures under Article 4 to non-Parties to the Protocol 4 240
IV/18 Financial mechanism 10 478
IV/19 Budgets and financial matters 13 537
IV/20 Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 480, 496
IV/21 Temporary difficulties encountered by Hungary, Bulgaria and Poland 10 480
IV/22 Bureau of the Montreal Protocol 11 534
IV/23 Methyl bromide 2 189
IV/24 Recovery, reclamation and recycling of controlled substances 1 115
IV/25 Essential uses 2 122
IV/26 International recycled halon bank management 1 88
IV/27 Implementation of paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Protocol 4 246
IV/28 Implementation of paragraph 3 bis of Article 4 of the Protocol 4 246
IV/29 Meeting the needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the 5 278
Protocol
IV/30 Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 2 180
IV/31 Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 523

I Adjustments to Articles 2A and 2B of the Montreal Protocol 5.3 698
II Adjustments to Articles 2C, 2D and 2E of the Montreal Protocol 5.3 699
III Amendment to the Montreal Protocol 5.5 721
IV Non-compliance procedure (not included)
V Indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in 3.5 633
respect of non-compliance with the Protocol
VI Approved destruction processes 3.1 581
VII Suggested regulatory standards for destruction facilities (not included)
VIII Indicative list of categories of incremental costs 3.6 636
IX Terms of reference for the Multilateral Fund 3.6 634
X Terms of reference for the Executive Committee (not included)
XI Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol; scale of 1993 and 1994 contributions (not included)
XII Revised 1992 and 1993 budgets and proposed 1994 budget for the Secretariat (not included)
of the Vienna Convention and its Montreal Protocol
XIII Interim Multilateral Fund Secretariat: approved budget and revised estimated (not included)
expenditure for 1992
XIV Multilateral Fund for the financial mechanism: scale of contributions for 1993 and (not included)
1994
47

XV Resolution adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on methyl 3.8 652
bromide
XVI Statement on the question of Yugoslavia 3.8 653
MP DECISIONS
INDEX
48
Fifth Meeting of the Parties (Bangkok, 17–19 November 1993)

V/1 Amendments adopted by the Second Meeting of the Parties (London Amendment) 16 558
and by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties (Copenhagen Amendment)
V/2 Implementation Committee 8 354
V/3 Application of trade measures under Article 4 to non-Parties to the London 4 240
Amendment
V/4 Classification of certain developing countries as not operating under Article 5 and 5 273
reclassification of certain developing countries earlier classified as not operating
under Article 5
V/5 Revised format for reporting of data under Article 7 7 320
MP DECISIONS
V/6 Data and information reporting 7 332
INDEX
V/7 Review of the functioning of the Financial Mechanism since 1 January 1991 10 505
V/8 Consideration of alternatives 2 181
V/9 Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the 10 480, 496
Montreal Protocol
V/10 Temporary difficulties encountered by Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland and other 10 481
countries with economies in transition
V/11 Review under paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the Protocol 5 284
V/12 Review under section II, paragraph 4, of decision IV/18 of the Fourth Meeting of 10 505
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
V/13 Assessment panel reports 6 289
V/14 Essential uses of halons 2 123
V/15 International halon bank management 1 89
V/16 Supply of halons to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol 5 281
V/17 Feasibility of banning or restricting from States not party to the Montreal Protocol 4 246
the import of products produced with, but not containing, controlled substances in
Annex A, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Protocol
V/18 Timetable for the submission and consideration of essential use nominations 2 123
V/19 Control measures to be applicable to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 277
5 of the Protocol with respect to the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C,
Group II of Annex, C and Annex E
V/20 Extension of application of trade measures under Article 4 to controlled substances 4 246
listed in Group I of Annex C and in Annex E
V/21 Budgets and financial matters 13 537
V/22 Bureau of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 534
V/23 Funding of methyl bromide projects by the Executive Committee of the 10 515
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
V/24 Trade in controlled substances and the Basel Convention on Transboundary 1 116
Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
V/25 Provision of information on the supply of controlled substances to Parties 5 279
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol
V/26 Destruction technologies 1 89
V/27 Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 523
V/28 Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 523

I Formats for reporting data under the amended Montreal Protocol (not included)
II Trust Fund for the Multilateral Fund: scale of 1994, 1995 and 1996 contributions (not included)
III Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: scale of 1994 and 1995 contributions (not included)
IV Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: approved 1993, revised 1994 and approved (not included)
1995 budgets for the Ozone Secretariat
V Memorandum issued by the ministers responsible for environmental matters in 3.8 653
Germany, Lichtenstein, Switzerland and Austria on partly halogenated
chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
VI Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 3.8 654
VII Declaration on methyl bromide 3.8 654
VIII Declarations by the Heads of the Delegations representing countries with 3.8 655
economies in transition
49
Sixth Meeting of the Parties (Nairobi, 6–7 October 1994)

VI/1 Ratification, approval or accession to the Vienna Convention for the 16 558
Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Amendments to the Montreal Protocol
VI/2 Implementation of Article 7 and 9 of the Protocol 7 332
VI/3 Implementation Committee 8 354
VI/4 Application of trade measures under Article 4 to non-Parties to the London 4 241
Amendment to the Protocol
VI/5 Status of certain Parties vis-à-vis Article 5 of the Protocol 5 273
VI/6 Reviews under paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the Protocol and under section II, 10 506
MP DECISIONS
paragraph 4, of decision IV/18 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the

INDEX
Montreal Protocol
VI/7 Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the 10 496
Montreal Protocol
VI/8 Essential use nominations for halons for 1995 2 123
VI/9 Essential use nominations for controlled substances other than halons for 1996 2 124
and beyond
VI/10 Use of controlled substances as process agents 1 100
VI/11 Clarification of “quarantine” and “pre-shipment” applications for control of 2 197
methyl bromide
VI/12 List of products containing controlled substances in Annex B of the Protocol 4 247
VI/13 Assessment panels 2 182, 189
VI/14A Provision of information on the supply of controlled substances to Parties 5 279
VI/14B “Basic domestic needs” 5 280
VI/15 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 531
Protocol
VI/16 Juridical personality, privileges and immunities of the Multilateral Fund 10 479
VI/17 Budgets and financial matters 13 537
VI/18 Modification of the indicative list of categories of incremental costs under the 10 506
Montreal Protocol
VI/19 Trade in previously used ozone-depleting substances 1 116
VI/20 Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 523

I Essential use exemptions 3.2 589
II Conditions applied to exemption for laboratory and analytical uses 3.2 592
III Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: scale of 1994, 1995 and 1996 (not included)
contributions
IV Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: revised 1994 and 1995 budgets and (not included)
approved 1996 budget for the Ozone Secretariat
V Declaration on the Multilateral Fund from the delegations of Argentina, 3.8 655
Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, India, Malaysia, Peru, Philippines and
Uruguay
50
Seventh Meeting of the Parties (Vienna, 5–7 December 1995)

VII/1 Further adjustments and reductions: controlled substances listed in Annex A 2 118
to the Protocol
VII/2 Further adjustments and reductions: controlled substances listed in Annex B 2 118
to the Protocol
VII/3 Further adjustments and reductions: controlled substances listed in Annexes 2 119
C and E to the Protocol
VII/4 Provision of financial support and technology transfer 10, 10A 516, 520
VII/5 Definition of “quarantine” and “pre-shipment” applications 2 199
VII/6 Reduction of methyl bromide emissions 2 190
MP DECISIONS
VII/7 Trade in methyl bromide 4 247
INDEX
VII/8 Review of methyl bromide controls 2 190
VII/9 Basic domestic needs 4B, 5 252, 280
VII/10 Continued uses of controlled substances as chemical process agents after 1 101
1996
VII/11 Laboratory and analytical uses 2 144
VII/12 Control measures for Parties not operating under Article 5 concerning 2 171
halons and other agents used for fire-suppression and explosion-inertion
purposes
VII/13 Ratification, approval or accession to the Vienna Convention for the 16 559
Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Amendments to the Montreal Protocol
VII/14 Implementation of the Protocol by the Parties 7 332
VII/15 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Poland 8 439
VII/16 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bulgaria 8 380
VII/17 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Belarus 8 370
VII/18 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation 8 441
VII/19 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ukraine 8 461
VII/20 Discrepancy between the data reported by a Party to the Ozone Secretariat and 7 320
the data presented by that Party to the Executive Committee of the Multilateral
Fund
VII/21 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 354
VII/22 Review of the Financial Mechanism 10 506
VII/23 Financial planning in the Multilateral Fund 10 516
VII/24 1997–1999 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund 10 481
VII/25 Provision by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund of specific 10 516
financial support for projects in low-volume-ODS-consuming countries (LVCs)
VII/26 Technology transfer 10A 521
VII/27 Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the 10 497
Montreal Protocol
VII/28 Essential use nominations for controlled substances for 1996 and beyond 2 124
VII/29 Assessment of the possible need for and modalities and criteria for a critical 2 210
agricultural use exemption for methyl bromide
VII/30 Export and import of controlled substances to be used as feedstock 1 99
VII/31 Status of recycled CFCs and halons under the Basel Convention on the 1 117
Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
Disposal
VII/32 Control of export and import of products and equipment containing 4A 249
substances listed in Annexes A and B of the Montreal Protocol
VII/33 Illegal imports and exports of controlled substances 4B 261
VII/34 Assessment Panels 6 289
VII/35 Destruction technology 1 89
VII/36 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 531
Protocol
VII/37 Financial matters: financial report and budgets 13 538
VII/38 Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 523
51

I Adjustments relating to controlled substances in Annex A 5.3 701
II Adjustments relating to controlled substances in Annex B 5.3 701
III Adjustments relating to controlled substances in Annexes C and E 5.3 701
IV Categories and examples of laboratory uses 3.2 592
V Actions to improve the financial mechanism for the implementation of the 10 506
Montreal Protocol
VI Essential use exemptions (includes adjustments from the Eighth Meeting of 3.2 589
the Parties Report, Annex III)
VII Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol; scale of 1996 and 1997 contributions (not included)
VIII Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol; approved 1995, 1996 and 1997 (not included)
budgets
MP DECISIONS
IX Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 3.8 657

INDEX
X Declaration on methyl bromide 3.8 657
52
Eighth Meeting of the Parties (San José, 25–27 November 1996)

VIII/1 Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and its 16 559
Amendments
VIII/2 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Articles 7 7 332
and 9 of the Montreal Protocol
VIII/3 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 354
VIII/4 Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund and three-year rolling business plan 10 481
for 1997–1999
VIII/5 Actions to improve the functioning of the Financial Mechanism 10 509
VIII/6 Contributions to the Multilateral Fund 10 482
MP DECISIONS
VIII/7 Measures taken to improve the Financial Mechanism and technology 10, 10A 510, 521
INDEX
transfer
VIII/8 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 497
VIII/9 Essential use nominations for Parties not operating under Article 5 for 2 125
controlled substances for 1997 through 2002
VIII/10 Actions by Parties not operating under Article 5 to promote industry’s 2 156
participation on a smooth and efficient transition away from CFC-based MDIs
VIII/11 Measures to facilitate a transition by a Party not operating under Article 5 2 157
from CFC-based MDIs
VIII/12 Information gathering on a transition to non-CFC treatments for asthma and 2 157
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for Parties not operating under Article 5
VIII/13 Uses and possible applications of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 2 182
VIII/14 Further clarification of the definition of “Bulk substances” under decision I/12A 1 86
VIII/15 Control of trade in methyl bromide with non-Parties 4 247
VIII/16 Critical agricultural uses of methyl bromide 2 211
VIII/17 Availability of halons for critical uses 2 171
VIII/18 List of products containing controlled substances in Group II of Annex C 4 247
(Hydrobromofluorocarbons) of the Protocol
VIII/19 Organization and functioning of the Technology and Economic Assessment 6 291
Panel
VIII/20 Illegal imports and exports of controlled substances 4B 261
VIII/21 Revised formats for reporting data under Article 7 of the Protocol 7 333
VIII/22 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Latvia 8 416
VIII/23 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Lithuania 8 424
VIII/24 Non-compliance by the Czech Republic with the halon phase-out by 1994 8 383
VIII/25 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation 8 442
VIII/26 Exports of ozone-depleting substances and products containing ODS 4B 253
VIII/27 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 531
Protocol
VIII/28 Financial Matters: financial report and budgets 13 538
VIII/29 Application of Georgia for developing country status under the Montreal 5 274
Protocol
VIII/30 Ninth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 523

I Multilateral Fund: scale of 1997–1999 contributions (not included)
II Recommended nominations for essential use exemptions 3.2 589
III Recommended adjustments to quantities approved earlier for essential uses (not included)
(reflected in the essential use approvals of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties,
Annex VI – see Section 3.2)
IV Reporting accounting framework for essential uses other than laboratory and 3.2 594
analytical applications
V Terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 3.3 597
(TEAP)
VI Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: scale of 1997–1998 contributions (not included)
VII Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: budgets for 1996, 1997 and 1998 (not included)
VIII Note on the status of the Multilateral Fund (not included)
53
Ninth Meeting of the Parties (Montreal, 15–17 September 1997)

IX/1 Further adjustments with regard to Annex A substances 2 119
IX/2 Further adjustments with regard to Annex B substances 2 119
IX/3 Further adjustments and reductions with regard to the Annex E substance 2 119
IX/4 Further Amendment of the Protocol 14 557
IX/5 Conditions for control measures on Annex E substance in Article 5 Parties 2, 5 190, 277
IX/6 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide 2 191
IX/7 Emergency methyl bromide use 2 212
IX/8 Licensing system 4B 253
IX/9 Control of export of products and equipment whose continuing functioning 4A 249
MP DECISIONS
relies on Annex A and Annex B substances

INDEX
IX/10 Ratification of the Vienna Convention, Montreal Protocol and London and 16 559
Copenhagen Amendments
IX/11 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Articles 7 7 333
IX/12 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 354
IX/13 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 497
IX/14 Measures taken to improve the Financial Mechanism and technology 10, 10A 510, 521
transfer
IX/15 Production sector 10 517
IX/16 Terms of reference of the Executive Committee 10 503
IX/17 Essential-use exemption for laboratory and analytical uses of ozone- 2 145
depleting substances
IX/18 Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled 2 126
substances for 1998 and 1999
IX/19 Metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) 2 159
IX/20 Transfer of essential-use authorizations for CFCs for MDIs 2 159
IX/21 Decommissioning of non-essential halon systems in non-Article 5 Parties 2 172
IX/22 Customs codes 7 324
IX/23 Continuing availability of CFCs 2 169
IX/24 Control of new substances with ozone-depleting potential 2 235
IX/25 Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere Other 572
IX/26 Application of the Republic of Moldova for developing country status 5 274
under the Montreal Protocol
IX/27 Application of South Africa for developing country status under the Montreal 5 274
Protocol
IX/28 Revised formats for reporting data under Article 7 of the Protocol 7 333
IX/29 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Latvia 8 417
IX/30 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Lithuania 8 424
IX/31 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation 8 443
IX/32 Non-compliance by the Czech Republic with the freeze in consumption of 8 386
methyl bromide in 1995
IX/33 Request by Brunei Darussalam for reclassification as a Party operating 5 275
under paragraph 1 of Article 5
IX/34 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol 7 323
IX/35 Review of the non-compliance procedure 8 349
IX/36 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 531
Protocol
IX/37 Financial matters: financial report and budgets 13 539
IX/38 Outstanding contributions to the Multilateral Fund from Parties not 10 482
operating under Article 5 that had not ratified the London Amendment
IX/39 Refund of contributions by Cyprus to the Multilateral Fund 10 482
IX/40 Tenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 524

I Adjustments relating to controlled substances in Annex A 5.3 703
II Adjustments relating to controlled substances in Annex B 5.3 703
III Adjustments relating to the controlled substance in Annex E 5.3 703
54

IV Amendment to the Montreal Protocol 5.6 731
V Terms of reference of the Executive Committee 3.6 637
VI Essential use exemptions for 1998 and 1999 3.2 589
VII Data reporting forms (not included)
VIII Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: scale of 1997 and 1998 (not included)
contributions
IX Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: 1997, 1998 and 1999 budgets (not included)
X Arrears to the Multilateral Fund from countries that had not ratified the (not included)
London Amendment
XI Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons 3.8 658
XII Declaration regarding methyl bromide 3.8 658
MP DECISIONS
INDEX
55
Tenth Meeting of the Parties (Cairo, 23–24 November 1998)

X/1 Ratification of the Vienna Convention, Montreal Protocol, London, 16 559
Copenhagen and Montreal Amendments
X/2 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Articles 7 7 333
X/3 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 355
X/4 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 497
X/5 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 531
Protocol
X/6 Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled 2 126
MP DECISIONS

INDEX
X/7 Halon-management strategies 2 173

X/8 New substances with ozone-depleting potential 2 235
X/9 Establishment of a list of countries that do not manufacture for domestic 4A 249
use and do not wish to import products and equipment whose continuing
functioning relies on Annex A and Annex B substances
X/10 Review of the non-compliance procedure 8 350
X/11 Quarantine and pre-shipment exemption 2 191
X/12 Emissions of ozone-depleting substances from feedstock applications 1 99
X/13 Terms of reference for a study on the 2000-2002 replenishment of the 10 482
Multilateral Fund
X/14 Process agents 1 101
X/15 Exports of controlled substances in Annex A and Annex B to the Montreal 5 281
Protocol from non-Article 5 Parties to meet the basic domestic needs of Article
5 Parties
X/16 Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in the light of the Kyoto Protocol Other 567
X/17 Production sector 10 517
X/18 Customs codes 7 324
X/19 Exemption for laboratory and analytical uses 2 145
X/20 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Azerbaijan 8 364
X/21 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Belarus 8 371
X/22 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Czech Republic 8 386
X/23 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Estonia 8 393
X/24 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Latvia 8 417
X/25 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Lithuania 8 424
X/26 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation 8 444
X/27 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ukraine 8 462
X/28 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Uzbekistan 8 466
X/29 Inconsistencies in the timing for the reporting of data under Article 7 and for 5, 7 285, 333
monitoring compliance with the phase-out schedule under Article 5,
paragraph 8 bis
X/30 Financial matters: financial report and budgets 13 540
X/31 Measures taken to improve the Financial Mechanism and technology 10, 10A 510, 522
transfer
X/32 Proposal to study a fixed currency exchange rate mechanism for the 10 483
replenishment of the Multilateral Fund
X/33 Global Environment Facility Other 571
X/34 Eleventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 524

I Essential use exemptions for 1999 and 2000 3.2 589
II Non-compliance procedure (1998) 3.5 631
III Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: 1998, 1998 and 2000 budgets (not included)
IV Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: scale of 2000 contributions (not included)
V Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons 3.8 659
(HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
56
Eleventh Meeting of the Parties (Beijing, 29 November – 3 December 1999)

XI/1 Beijing Declaration on Renewed Commitment to the Protection of the 11 528
Ozone Layer
XI/2 Further adjustments with regard to Annex A substances 2 119
XI/3 Further adjustments with regard to Annex B substances 2 119
XI/4 Further adjustments with regard to Annex E substance 2 119
XI/5 Further Amendment of the Montreal Protocol 14 557
XI/6 Fixed-exchange-rate mechanism for the replenishment of the Multilateral 10 491
Fund
XI/7 Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the period 2000–2002 10 483
MP DECISIONS
XI/8 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 355
INDEX
XI/9 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 498
XI/10 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 531
Protocol
XI/11 Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and the 16 560
London, Copenhagen and Montreal Amendments
XI/12 Definition of pre-shipment applications of methyl bromide 2 200
XI/13 Quarantine and pre-shipment 2 200
XI/14 Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled substances 2 126
for 2000 and 2001
XI/15 Global exemption for laboratory and analytical uses 2 146
XI/16 CFC management strategies in non-Article 5 Parties 2 169
XI/17 Terms of reference for Assessment Panels 6 291
XI/18 Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere Other 573
XI/19 Assessment of new substances 2 236
XI/20 Procedure for new substances 2 237
XI/21 Financial matters: financial report and budgets 13 540
XI/22 Global Environment Facility Other 571
XI/23 Data reporting 7 333
XI/24 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bulgaria 8 380
XI/25 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Turkmenistan 8 458
XI/26 Recommendations and clarifications of the World Customs Organization 7 325
concerning customs codes for ozone-depleting substances and products
containing ozone-depleting substances
XI/27 Refrigerant management plans 10 518
XI/28 Supply of HCFCs to Parties operating under paragraph 1 Article 5 of the 5 281
Protocol
XI/29 Twelfth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 524

I Beijing Declaration on Renewed Commitment to the Protection of the Ozone 3.8 659
Layer
II Adjustments relating to controlled substances in Annex A 5.3 705
III Adjustments relating to controlled substances in Annex B 5.3 706
IV Adjustments relating to the controlled substance in Annex E 5.3 706
V Amendment to the Montreal Protocol 5.7 733
VI Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the period 2000–2002 (not included)
(Contributions by the Parties)
VII Essential use exemptions for 2000 and 2001 3.2 589
VIII Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: 2000 and 2001 budgets (not included)
IX Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: scale of 2000 and 2001 contributions (not included)
57
Twelfth Meeting of the Parties (Ouagadougou, 11 – 14 December 2000)

XII/1 Methyl bromide production by non-Article 5 Parties for basic domestic 2 191
needs in 2001
XII/2 Measures to facilitate the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free metered-dose 2 160
inhalers
XII/3 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 355
XII/4 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 498
XII/5 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 532
Protocol
XII/6 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Articles 7 7 334
MP DECISIONS

INDEX
XII/7 Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the 16 560
London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments
XII/8 Disposal of controlled substances 1 90
XII/9 Essential use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled substances 2 127
for 2001 and 2002
XII/10 Monitoring of international trade and prevention of illegal trade in 4B 262
ozone-depleting substances, mixtures and products containing ozone-
XII/11 Application by Kyrgyzstan for developing country status under the Montreal 5 275
Protocol
XII/12 Request by Slovenia to be removed from the list of developing counties 5 275
XII/13 Term of office of the Implementation Committee and its officers 8 355
XII/14 Continued assistance from the Global Environment Facility to countries with Other 571
XII/15 Financial matters: Financial report and budgets 13 541
XII/16 Organization of Ozone Secretariat and Multilateral Fund meetings 10, 12 518, 535
XII/17 Ouagadougou Declaration at the Twelfth Meeting of the Parties to the 11 528
Montreal Protocol
XII/18 Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 524

I Essential use exemptions for 2001–2002 recommended by the Twelfth 3.2 589
Meeting of the Parties
II Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: Approved 2000, revised 2001 and (not included)
proposed 2002 budgets
III Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: scale of 2001 and 2002 contributions (not included)
IV Ouagadougou Declaration at the Twelfth Meeting of the Parties to the 3.8 661
Montreal Protocol
58
Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties (Colombo, 16 – 19 October 2001)

XIII/1 Terms of reference for the study on the 2003 – 2005 replenishment of the 10 484
XIII/2 Ad hoc working group on the 2003 – 2005 replenishment of the Multilateral 10 484
Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
XIII/3 Evaluation study on the managing and implementing bodies of the financial 10 510
mechanism of the Montreal Protocol
XIII/4 Review of the implementation of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism and 10 492
determination of the impact of the mechanism on the operations of the
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol and on
MP DECISIONS
the funding of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances in Article 5
INDEX
Parties for the triennium 2000-2002
XIII/5 Procedures for assessing the ozone-depleting potential of new substances 2 237
that may be damaging to the ozone layer
XIII/6 Expedited procedures for adding new substances to the Montreal Protocol 2 237
XIII/7 n-propyl bromide 2 238
XIII/8 Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 2 127
XIII/9 Metered-dose inhaler (MDI) production 2 161
XIII/10 Further study of campaign production of CFCs for metered-dose inhalers 2 161
(MDIs)
XIII/11 Procedures for applying for a critical-use exemption for methyl bromide 2 212
XIII/12 Monitoring of international trade and prevention of illegal trade in 4B 262
ozone-depleting substances, mixtures and products containing ozone-
XIII/13 Request to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for the final 1 103
report on process agents
XIII/14 Ratification of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone 16 560
Layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
and the London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments
XIII/15 Data and information provided by the Parties to the 13th Meeting of the 7 334
Parties in accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol
XIII/16 Potential non-compliance with the freeze on CFC consumption in Article 5 8 469
Parties in the control period 1999-2000
XIII/17 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation 8 445
XIII/18 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia 8 362
XIII/19 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kazakhstan 8 411
XIII/20 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Tajikistan 8 447
XIII/21 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Argentina 8 361
XIII/22 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Belize 8 372
XIII/23 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Cameroon 8 380
XIII/24 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ethiopia 8 394
XIII/25 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Peru 8 439
XIII/26 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 355
XIII/27 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 498
XIII/28 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 532
Protocol
XIII/29 Recognizing the preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Other 573
Development 2002
XIII/30 Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets 13 541
XIII/31 Appointment of the Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat 12 535
XIII/32 Colombo Declaration 11 528
XIII/33 Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 524
59

I Essential use exemptions for 2002–2004 authorized by the Thirteenth Meeting 3.2 589
of the Parties
II Recommendation of the Customs Co-operation Council on the insertion in (not included)
national statistical nomenclatures of subheadings to facilitate the collection
and comparison of data on the international movement of substances
controlled by virtue of amendments to the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer (25 June 1999)
III Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: Approved budgets for 2001 and 2002 (not included)
and proposed budget for 2003
IV Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: scale of 2002 and 2003 contributions (not included)
V Colombo Declaration on renewed commitment to the protection of the 3.8 662
MP DECISIONS
ozone layer to mark the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable

INDEX
Development, in 2002, the 15th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol and

the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Multilateral Fund
VI Declaration by the Pacific island countries attending the 13th Meeting of the 3.8 663
Parties to the Montreal Protocol
60
Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties (Rome, 25 – 29 November 2002)

XIV/1 Ratification of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone 16 561
XIV/2 Application by Armenia for developing country status under the Montreal 5 276
Protocol
XIV/3 Clarification of certain terminology related to controlled substances 1 117
XIV/4 Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled 2 127
XIV/5 Global database and assessment to determine appropriate measures to 2 162
MP DECISIONS
complete the transition from chlorofluorocarbon metered-dose inhalers
INDEX
XIV/6 Status of destruction technologies of ozone-depleting substances, including 1 90
an assessment of their environmental and economic performance, as well
as their commercial viability
XIV/7 Monitoring of trade in ozone-depleting substances and preventing illegal 4B 263
trade in ozone-depleting substances
XIV/8 Consideration of the use of the Globally Harmonized System for the Other 574
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals that deplete the ozone layer
XIV/9 The development of policies governing the service sector and final use of 2 170
chillers
XIV/10 Relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and Other 568
efforts to safeguard the global climate system: issues relating to
hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons
XIV/11 The relationship between the Montreal Protocol and the World Trade Other 574
Organization
XIV/12 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 356
XIV/13 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 7 334
of the Montreal Protocol
XIV/14 Non-compliance with data reporting requirements under Article 7 of the 7 343
Montreal Protocol by Parties temporarily classified as operating under
Article 5 of the Protocol
XIV/15 Non-compliance with data reporting requirement under Article 7 7 343
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Montreal Protocol
XIV/16 Non-compliance with data reporting requirement for the purpose of 7 343
establishing baselines under Article 5 paragraphs 3 and 8
XIV/17 Potential non-compliance with the freeze on CFC consumption by Parties 8 469
operating under Article 5 for the control period July 2000 to June 2001
XIV/18 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Albania 8 360
XIV/19 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bahamas 8 367
XIV/20 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bolivia 8 373
XIV/21 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bosnia and Herzegovina 8 375
XIV/22 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Namibia 8 429
XIV/23 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Nepal 8 431
XIV/24 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Saint Vincent and the 8 446
Grenadines
XIV/25 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 8 419
XIV/26 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Maldives 8 425
XIV/27 Requests for changes in baseline data 7 326
XIV/28 Non-compliance with consumption phase-out by Parties not operating under 8 470
Article 5 in 2000
XIV/29 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bangladesh 8 368
XIV/30 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Nigeria 8 433
XIV/31 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia 8 362
XIV/32 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Cameroon 8 381
XIV/33 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Belize 8 372
XIV/34 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ethiopia 8 395
XIV/35 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation 8 445
XIV/36 Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 254
61

Montreal Protocol
XIV/37 Interaction between the Executive Committee and the Implementation 8, 10 356, 503
Committee
XIV/38 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 498
XIV/39 The 2003-2005 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund 10 485
XIV/40 Fixed-Exchange-Rate Mechanism for the replenishment of the Multilateral 10 493
Fund
XIV/41 Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets 13 542
XIV/42 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 532
Protocol
XIV/43 Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 524
MP DECISIONS
INDEX

I Essential use exemptions for 2003–2004 authorized by the Fourteenth 3.2 589
Meeting of the Parties
II Contributions by Parties to the fifth replenishment of the Multilateral Fund (not included)
(2003, 2004 and 2005)
III Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: Approved 2002 and proposed 2003 (not included)
and 2004 budgets
62
Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties (Nairobi, 10 – 14 November 2003)

XV/1 Ratification of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone 16 561
and the London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments
XV/2 Production for basic domestic needs 5 282
XV/3 Obligations of Parties to the Beijing Amendment under Article 4 of the 4 241
Montreal Protocol with respect to hydrochlorofluorocarbons
XV/4 Essential use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled 2 128
XV/5 Promoting the closure of essential-use nominations for metered-dose 2 163
MP DECISIONS
inhalers
INDEX
XV/6 List of uses of controlled substances as process agents 1 103
XV/7 Process agents 1 104
XV/8 Laboratory and analytical uses 2 146
XV/9 Status of destruction technologies for ozone-depleting substances and code 1 91
of good housekeeping
XV/10 Handling and destruction of foams containing ozone-depleting substances 1 92
at the end of their life
XV/11 Plan of action to modify regulatory requirements that mandate the use of 2 173
halons on new airframes
XV/12 Use of methyl bromide for the treatment of high-moisture dates 2 191
XV/13 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 356
XV/14 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 7 335
XV/15 Earlier reporting of consumption and production data 7 335
XV/16 Non-compliance with data reporting requirements under Article 7, 7 344
XV/17 Non-compliance with data reporting requirements under Article 7 of the 7 344
Montreal Protocol by Parties temporarily classified as operating under
Article 5 of the Protocol
XV/18 Non-compliance with data reporting requirement for the purpose of 7 345
establishing baselines under Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d)
XV/19 Methodology for submission of requests for revision of baseline data 7 327
XV/20 Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 254
Montreal Protocol
XV/21 Potential non-compliance with consumption of Annex A, group I, ozone- 8 470
depleting substances (CFCs) by Article 5 Parties for the control period
1 July 2001-31 December 2002, and requests for plans of action
XV/22 Potential non-compliance with consumption of Annex A, group II, ozone- 8 471
depleting substances (halons) by Article 5 Parties in 2002, and requests for
plans of action
XV/23 Potential non-compliance with consumption of the Annex C, group II, ozone- 8 429
depleting substance (hydrobromofluorocarbons) by Morocco in 2002, and
request for a plan of action
XV/24 Potential non-compliance with consumption of the controlled substance in 8 471
Annex E (methyl bromide) by non-Article 5 Parties in 2002, and requests for
plans of action
XV/25 Potential non-compliance with consumption of the ozone-depleting substance in 8 472
Annex E (methyl bromide) by Article 5 Parties in 2002, and requests for plans
of action
XV/26 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Albania 8 360
XV/27 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia 8 362
XV/28 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Azerbaijan 8 365
XV/29 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bolivia 8 374
XV/30 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bosnia and Herzegovina 8 375
XV/31 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Botswana 8 379
XV/32 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Cameroon 8 382
XV/33 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Democratic Republic of 8 388
63

the Congo
XV/34 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Guatemala 8 401
XV/35 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Honduras 8 406
XV/36 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 8 419
XV/37 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Maldives 8 426
XV/38 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Namibia 8 430
XV/39 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Nepal 8 431
XV/40 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Papua New Guinea 8 436
XV/41 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Qatar 8 440
XV/42 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Saint Vincent and the 8 447
Grenadines
MP DECISIONS
XV/43 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Uganda 8 459

INDEX
XV/44 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Uruguay 8 464

XV/45 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Viet Nam 8 468
XV/46 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 499
XV/47 Terms of reference for a study on the management of the financial 10 511
XV/48 Decision on the report of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 504
for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
XV/49 Application for technical and financial assistance from the Global Other 571
Environment Facility by South Africa
XV/50 Continued assistance from the Global Environment Facility to countries with Other 572
XV/51 Institutional strengthening assistance to countries with economies in Other 572
transition
XV/52 Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets 13 543
XV/53 Terms of reference for the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Environmental 6 292
Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel
XV/54 Categories of assessment to be used by the Technology and Economic 2 213
Assessment Panel when assessing critical uses of methyl bromide
XV/55 Co-chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 532
Protocol
XV/56 Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties 11 524
XV/57 Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 525

I Essential use nominations 3.2 589
II Approved destruction processes 3.1 581
III Code of good housekeeping 3.1 581
IV Suggested substances for monitoring and declaration when using destruction 3.1 587
technologies
V Terms of reference for the study on the management of the financial (not included)
VI Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: Approved 2003, revised proposed (not included)
2004 and proposed 2005 budgets
VII Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: scale of 2004 and 2005 contributions (not included)
VIII Declaration on methyl bromide 3.8 663
64
First Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties (Montreal, 24 – 26 March 2004)

Ex.I/1 Further adjustments relating to the controlled substance in Annex E 2 120
Ex.I/2 Accelerated phase-out of methyl bromide by Article 5 Parties 2 192
Ex.I/3 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2005 2 213
Ex.I/4 Conditions for granting and reporting critical-use exemptions for methyl 2 215
bromide
Ex.I/5 Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl 6 293
Bromide Technical Options Committee
MP DECISIONS
I Requirements for annual reporting of critical-use exemptions for methyl 3.4 618
INDEX
bromide
II Critical-use exemptions of methyl bromide 3.4 606
III Draft decision submitted by the United States of America to the First (not included)
Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties
IV Declaration on limitations on the consumption of methyl bromide 3.8 664
65
Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties (Prague, 22 – 26 November 2004)

XVI/1 Ratification of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone 16 561
XVI/2 Critical use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2005 and 2006 2 217
XVI/3 Duration of critical-use nominations of methyl bromide 2 219
XVI/4 Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl 6 295
XVI/5 Provision of financial assistance to the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 6 295
Committee
MP DECISIONS
XVI/6 Accounting framework 2 220

INDEX
XVI/7 Trade in products and commodities treated with methyl bromide 2 192
XVI/8 Request for technical and financial support relating to methyl bromide 10 518
alternatives
XVI/9 Flexibility in the use of alternatives for the phasing out of methyl bromide 2 193
XVI/10 Reporting of information relating to quarantine and pre-shipment uses of 2 201
methyl bromide
XVI/11 Coordination among United Nations bodies on quarantine and pre- 2 202
shipment uses
XVI/12 Essential-use nominations for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of 2 128
Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol for controlled substances for 2005 and
2006
XVI/13 Assessment of the portion of the refrigeration service sector made up by 2 170
chillers and identification of incentives and impediments to the transition
to non-CFC equipment
XVI/14 Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions 2 177
XVI/15 Review of approved destruction technologies pursuant to decision XIV/6 1 92
of the Parties
XVI/16 Laboratory and analytical uses 2 146
XVI/17 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 7 335
XVI/18 Non-compliance with data-reporting requirements under Articles 5 and 7 7 345
of the Montreal Protocol by Parties recently ratifying the Montreal
Protocol
XVI/19 Potential non-compliance with consumption of Annex A, group II, ozone- 8 453
depleting substances (halons) by Somalia in 2002 and 2003, and request
for a plan of action
XVI/20 Potential non-compliance in 2003 with consumption of the controlled 8 472
substance in Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform) by Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5, and requests for plans of action
XVI/21 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Azerbaijan 8 365
XVI/22 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Chile 8 383
XVI/23 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Fiji 8 397
XVI/24 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Guinea-Bissau 8 404
XVI/25 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Lesotho 8 418
XVI/26 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 8 420
XVI/27 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Nepal 8 432
XVI/28 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Oman 8 434
XVI/29 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Pakistan 8 434
XVI/30 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Saint Vincent and the 8 447
Grenadines
XVI/31 Requests for changes in baseline data 7 327
XVI/32 Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 255
Montreal Protocol
XVI/33 Illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances 4B 264
XVI/34 Cooperation between the secretariat of the Montreal Protocol and other Other 574
related conventions and international organizations
XVI/35 Terms of reference for the study on the 2006–2008 replenishment of the 10 485
66

XVI/36 Evaluation and review of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol 10 511
(decision XV/47)
XVI/37 Outstanding contributions to the Multilateral Fund 10 486
XVI/38 Need to ensure equitable geographical representation in the Executive 10 504
Committee of the Multilateral Fund
XVI/39 Application of Turkmenistan for developing country status under the 5 276
Montreal Protocol
XVI/40 Request by Malta to be removed from the list of developing countries under 5 276
XVI/41 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 532
MP DECISIONS
Protocol
INDEX
XVI/42 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 357
XVI/43 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 499
XVI/44 Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets 13 544
XVI/45 Declaration of 2007 as “International Year of the Ozone Layer” 11 529
XVI/46 Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties 11 525
XVI/47 Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 526

I Critical-use nominations of methyl bromide: working procedures and 3.4 624
membership of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, and
guidance on the criteria for the evaluation of nominations
II Reporting accounting framework for critical uses of methyl bromide 3.4 630
III Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: Revised approved 2004, approved (not included)
2005 and proposed 2006 budgets
V Prague Declaration on enhancing cooperation among chemicals-related 3.8 664
multilateral environmental agreements
VI Summary of the science symposium: challenges and perspectives – ozone (not included)
layer protection
67
Second Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties (Montreal, 1 July 2005)

Ex.II/1 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide 2 220
MP DECISIONS
INDEX
68
Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties (Dakar, 12 – 16 December 2005)

XVII/1 Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and 16 562
the London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the
Montreal Protocol
XVII/2 Request by Cyprus to be removed from the list of developing countries 5 276
XVII/3 Application to Belgium, Poland and Portugal of paragraph 8 of Article 4 of 4 243
the Montreal Protocol with respect to the Beijing Amendment to the
Montreal Protocol
XVII/4 Application to Tajikistan of paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Montreal 4 243
MP DECISIONS
Protocol with respect to the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol
INDEX
XVII/5 Essential-use nominations for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of 2 128
Article 5 for controlled substances for 2006 and 2007
XVII/6 Process agents 1 105
XVII/7 List of uses of controlled substances as process agents 1 107
XVII/8 List of uses of controlled substances as process agents 1 107
XVII/9 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2006 and 2007 2 221
XVII/10 Laboratory and analytical critical uses of methyl bromide 2 147
XVII/11 Recapturing/recycling and destruction of methyl bromide from space 2 193
fumigation
XVII/12 Minimizing production of chlorofluorocarbons by Parties not operating 5 282
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol to meet the basic
domestic needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
XVII/13 Use of carbon tetrachloride for laboratory and analytical uses in Parties 2 147
XVII/14 Difficulties faced by some Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 2 164
of the Montreal Protocol with respect to chlorofluorocarbons used in the
manufacture of metered-dose inhalers
XVII/15 Coordination between the Ozone Secretariat and the Secretariat of the 2 203
International Plant Protection Convention
XVII/16 Preventing illegal trade in controlled ozone-depleting substances 4B 265
XVII/17 Technical and financial implications of the environmentally sound 1 92
destruction of concentrated and diluted sources of ozone-depleting
substances
XVII/18 Request for assistance of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 1 93
for the meeting of experts on destruction
XVII/19 Consideration of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and Other 568
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report as it relates
to actions to address ozone depletion
XVII/20 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 7 336
XVII/21 Non-compliance with data-reporting requirements under Articles 5 and 7 7 346
of the Montreal Protocol by Parties recently ratifying the Montreal
Protocol
XVII/22 Non-compliance with data-reporting requirements for the purpose of 7 346
XVII/23 Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 255
Montreal Protocol
XVII/24 Reports of the Parties submitted under Article 9 of the Montreal Protocol 9 474
on research, development, public awareness and exchange of information
XVII/25 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia and request for a 8 363
plan of action
XVII/26 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Azerbaijan 8 366
XVII/27 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bangladesh 8 368
XVII/28 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bosnia and Herzegovina 8 376
XVII/29 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Chile 8 383
69

XVII/30 Potential non-compliance in 2004 with consumption of the controlled 8 385
substances in Annex B group I (other fully halogenated
chlorofluorocarbons) by China, and request for a plan of action
XVII/31 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ecuador 8 390
XVII/32 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Federated States of 8 396
Micronesia
XVII/33 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Fiji 8 398
XVII/34 Revised plan of action to return Honduras to compliance with the control 8 407
measures in Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol
XVII/35 Potential non-compliance in 2004 with the controlled substances in Annex 8 412
A, group I (CFCs) by Kazakhstan, and request for a plan of action
MP DECISIONS
XVII/36 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kyrgyzstan 8 415

INDEX
XVII/37 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Libyan Arab 8 421
Jamahiriya
XVII/38 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Sierra Leone, and request 8 451
XVII/39 Revised plan of action for the early phase-out of methyl bromide in 8 465
Uruguay
XVII/40 The 2006-2008 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund 10 486
XVII/41 Fixed-exchange-rate mechanism for the replenishment of the Multilateral 10 493
Fund
XVII/42 Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets 13 545
XVII/43 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 357
XVII/44 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 499
XVII/45 Endorsement of new co-chairs of the technical options committees of the 6 313
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
XVII/46 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the 11 532
Montreal Protocol
XVII/47 Dates of future Montreal Protocol meetings 11 526
XVII/48 Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 527

I Trust fund for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer: (not included)
revised approved 2005 and approved 2006, 2007 and 2008 budgets
II Trust fund for the Vienna Convention: scale of contributions for 2006, 2007 (not included)
and 2008
III Contributions by Parties to the sixth replenishment of the Multilateral Fund (not included)
(2006, 2007 and 2008)
IV Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone (not included)
Layer: revised approved 2005 and approved 2006 and 2007 budgets
V Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol: scale of contributions for 2006 and (not included)
2007
70
Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties (New Delhi, 30 October – 3 November 2006)

XVIII/1 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 357
XVIII/2 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the 10 500
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
XVIII/3 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the 11 532
Montreal Protocol
XVIII/4 Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee 6 314
XVIII/5 Financial matters: financial reports and budgets 13 547
XVIII/6 Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the 16 562
London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Protocol
MP DECISIONS
XVIII/7 Essential-use exemptions for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of 2 129
INDEX
XVIII/8 Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace 2 130
applications in the Russian Federation for 2007
XVIII/9 Review of draft terms of reference for case studies called for under 1 93
decision XVII/17 on environmentally sound destruction of ozone-
XVIII/10 Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions 2 178
XVIII/11 Sources of n-propyl bromide emissions, alternatives available and 2 238
opportunities for reductions
XVIII/12 Future work following the Ozone Secretariat workshop on the Other 569
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel special report
XVIII/13 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2007 and 2008 2 222
XVIII/14 Montreal Protocol/International Plant Protection Convention cooperation 2 203
on the use of alternatives to methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-
shipment
XVIII/15 Laboratory and analytical critical uses of methyl bromide 2 148
XVIII/16 Difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties manufacturing metered-dose 2 165
inhalers which use chlorofluorocarbons
XVIII/17 Treatment of stockpiled ozone-depleting substances relative to compliance 8 352
XVIII/18 Preventing illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances through systems for 4B 266
monitoring their transboundary movement between Parties
XVIII/19 Guidelines for disclosure of interest for groups such as the Technology and 6 296
Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees
XVIII/20 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia 8 363
XVIII/21 Non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures of the Montreal 8 388
Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substances in Annex B,
group II, (carbon tetrachloride) and Annex B, group III, (methyl
chloroform) by the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A,
group I, (CFCs) by Dominica
Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E
(methyl bromide) by Ecuador and request for a plan of action
XVIII/24 Potential non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures of the 8 393
Montreal Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substances in
Annex A, group I, (CFCs) by Eritrea and request for a plan of action
XVIII/25 Non-compliance with regard to the transfer of CFC production rights by 8 399
Greece
XVIII/26 Revised plan of action to return Guatemala to compliance with the control 8 402
XVIII/27 Potential non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures of the 8 408
Montreal Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substance in
Annex B group II, (carbon tetrachloride) by the Islamic Republic of Iran
and request for a plan of action
XVIII/28 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kenya 8 414
71

XVIII/29 Request for change in baseline data by Mexico 7 328
Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B,
group II, (carbon tetrachloride) by Mexico
XVIII/31 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Pakistan 8 435
Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A,
group I, (CFCs) and Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) by Paraguay
XVIII/33 Non-compliance with data-reporting requirements for the purpose of 8 451
establishing baselines under paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d) of Article 5 by
MP DECISIONS
Serbia
INDEX
XVIII/34 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 7 336
XVIII/35 Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 256
Montreal Protocol
XVIII/36 Dialogue on key future challenges to be faced by the Montreal Protocol Other 575
XVIII/37 Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 527

I Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone (not included)
Layer: approved 2006, 2007 and 2008 budgets
II Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone (not included)
Layer: scale of contributions by the Parties for the years 2007 and 2008
III Essential-use authorizations for 2007 and 2008 of chlorofluorocarbons for 3.2 589
metered-dose inhalers approved by the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties
72
Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties (Montreal, 17 – 21 September 2007)

XIX/1 Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the 16 562
London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Protocol
XIX/2 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 357
XIX/3 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the 10 500
XIX/4 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the 11 532
Montreal Protocol
XIX/5 Financial matters: financial reports and budgets 13 548
XIX/6 Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol with regard to Annex C, Group I, 2 120
MP DECISIONS
substances (hydrochlorofluorocarbons)
INDEX
XIX/7 Eligibility of South Africa for financial assistance from the Multilateral 5 276
Fund
XIX/8 Additional work on hydrochlorofluorocarbons 2 182
XIX/9 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2008 and 2009 2 223
XIX/10 Terms of reference for the study on the 2009–2011 replenishment of the 10 487
XIX/11 Revision of the terms of reference of the Executive Committee 10 505
XIX/12 Preventing illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances 4B 267
XIX/13 Essential-use nominations for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of 2 131
XIX/14 Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace 2 132
applications in the Russian Federation
XIX/15 Replacement of table A and table A-bis in relevant process agent decisions 2 174
XIX/16 Follow-up to the 2006 assessment report by the Halons Technical Options 2 174
Committee
XIX/17 Use of carbon tetrachloride for laboratory and analytical uses in Parties 2 149
XIX/18 Laboratory and analytical-use exemption 2 149
XIX/19 Request by Romania to be removed from the list of developing countries 5 277
XIX/20 Terms of reference for the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Environmental 6 298
Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel
XIX/21 Non-compliance in 2005 with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol 8 400
governing production of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I,
(chlorofluorocarbons) and the requirements of Article 2 of the Protocol
with regard to the transfer of CFC production rights by Greece
XIX/22 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Paraguay 8 438
XIX/23 Potential non-compliance in 2005 with the provisions of the Montreal 8 448
Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E
(methyl bromide) by Saudi Arabia and request for a plan of action
XIX/24 Request for change in baseline data by Turkmenistan 7 328
XIX/25 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 7 337
XIX/26 Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 256
Montreal Protocol
XIX/27 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Islamic Republic of Iran 8 408
XIX/28 Implementation of paragraph 1 of decision XVII/12 with respect to the 5 284
reporting of production of chlorofluorocarbons by Parties not operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol to meet the basic
domestic needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
XIX/29 Selection of new co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel 6 314
XIX/30 Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 527
XIX/31 Montreal Declaration 11 529
73

Layer: approved 2007 and 2008 budgets and indicative 2009 budget
Layer: scale of contributions by the Parties for 2008 and 2009
III Adjustments agreed by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties relating to the 5.3 707
controlled substances in group I of Annex C of the Montreal Protocol
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons)
IV Montreal Declaration 3.8 666
MP DECISIONS
INDEX
74
Twentieth Meeting of the Parties (Doha, 16 – 20 November 2008)

XX/1 Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and 16 563
Montreal Protocol
XX/2 Essential-use nominations for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of 2 133
XX/3 Essential-use exemptions for Parties operating under paragraph 1 of 2 133
Article 5
XX/4 Campaign production of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers 2 167
XX/5 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2009 and 2010 2 224
MP DECISIONS
XX/6 Actions by Parties to reduce methyl bromide use for quarantine and 2 204
INDEX
pre-shipment purposes and related emissions
XX/7 Environmentally sound management of banks of ozone-depleting substances 1 94
XX/8 Workshop for a dialogue on high-global warming potential alternatives for Other 570
ozone-depleting substances
XX/9 Application of the Montreal Protocol’s trade provisions to 4 243
hydrochlorofluorocarbons
XX/10 2009–2011 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund 10 488
XX/11 Extension of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism to the 2009–2011 10 494
XX/12 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 7 338
XX/13 Reports of Parties submitted under Article 9 of the Montreal Protocol 9 475
XX/14 Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 257
Montreal Protocol
XX/15 Difficulties faced by Iraq as a new Party 8 410
XX/16 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ecuador 8 392
XX/17 Request for change in baseline data by Saudi Arabia 7 329
XX/18 Potential non-compliance in 2006 with the provisions of the Montreal 8 452
Protocol in respect of consumption of the controlled substances in Annex
A, group I, (chlorofluorocarbons) by Solomon Islands and request for a
plan of action and data for the year 2007
XX/19 Non-compliance with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol in respect of 8 454
consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, groups I
(chlorofluorocarbons) and II (halons) by Somalia
XX/20 Montreal Protocol financial matters: financial reports and budgets 13 549
XX/21 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 358
XX/22 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 500
XX/23 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the 11 533
Montreal Protocol
XX/24 Endorsement of new co-chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee 6 314
of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
XX/25 Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 527
XX/26 Adoption of the Doha Declaration 11 529

I Trust fund for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer: (not included)
Revised 2008 and approved 2009, 2010 and 2011 budgets
II Trust fund for the Vienna Convention: Scale of contributions by the Parties (not included)
for 2009–2011
III Scale of contributions for the 2009–2011 replenishment of the Multilateral (not included)
Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
Layer: Revised 2008 and approved 2009 and 2010 budgets
V Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone (not included)
Layer: Scale of contributions by the Parties for 2009 and 2010
VI Doha Declaration 3.8 667
75
Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties (Port Ghalib, Egypt, 4–8 November 2009)

XXI/1 Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and 16 563
Montreal Protocol
XXI/2 Environmentally sound management of banks of ozone-depleting 1 96
substances
XXI/3 Uses of controlled substances as process agents 1 109
XXI/4 Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2010 2 135
XXI/5 Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace 2 136
MP DECISIONS
XXI/6 Global laboratory use exemption 2 150

INDEX
XXI/7 Management and reduction of remaining uses of halons 2 174

XXI/8 Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions 2 178
of ODS emissions
XXI/9 Hydrochlorofluorocarbons and environmentally sound alternatives 2 183
XXI/10 Quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide 2 207
XXI/11 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2010 and 2011 2 226
XXI/12 Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 258
Montreal Protocol
XXI/13 Endorsement of the new co-chair of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning 6 314
and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel
XXI/14 Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 7 338
XXI/15 Reporting of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment use 7 322
XXI/16 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 358
XXI/17 Non-compliance in 2007 and 2008 with the provisions of the Protocol 8 369
governing consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I
(chlorofluorocarbons), by Bangladesh
XXI/18 Non-compliance in 2007 and 2008 with the provisions of the Protocol 8 377
(chlorofluorocarbons), by Bosnia and Herzegovina
XXI/19 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Federated States of 8 397
Micronesia
XXI/20 Non-compliance in 2008 with the provisions of the Protocol governing 8 428
consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group II (carbon
tetrachloride), by Mexico
consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I
(chlorofluorocarbons), by Saudi Arabia and request for a plan of action
XXI/22 Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Solomon Islands 8 453
XXI/23 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Somalia 8 455
XXI/24 Difficulties faced by Timor-Leste as a new Party 8 457
consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group II (carbon
tetrachloride), by Turkmenistan and request for a plan of action
XXI/26 Non-compliance in 2007 and 2008 with the control measures of the 8 467
Montreal Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substances in
Annex A group I (CFCs), by Vanuatu and request for a plan of action
XXI/27 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 500
XXI/28 Evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol 10 511
XXI/29 Institutional strengthening 10 518
XXI/30 Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 527
XXI/31 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the 11 533
Montreal Protocol
XXI/32 Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets 13 550
76

I Revised approved 2009, approved 2010 and proposed 2011 budgets (not included)
III Declaration on High-GWP alternatives to ODSs 3.8 669
MP DECISIONS
INDEX
77
Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties (Bangkok, 8–12 November 2010)

XXII/1 Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and 16 563
Montreal Protocol
XXII/2 Terms of reference for an evaluation of the financial mechanism of the 10 512
Montreal Protocol
XXII/3 Terms of reference for the study on the 2012–2014 replenishment of the 10 488
XXII/4 Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2011 2 137
XXII/5 Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace 2 138
MP DECISIONS

INDEX
XXII/6 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2011 and 2012 2 227
XXII/7 Global laboratory and analytical use exemption 2 153
XXII/8 Uses of controlled substances as process agents 1 111
XXII/9 Hydrochlorofluorocarbons preblended in polyols 2 184
XXII/10 Destruction technologies with regard to ozone-depleting substances 1 97
XXII/11 Progress by the International Civil Aviation Organization in the transition 2 175
from the use of halon
XXII/12 Situation of Haiti 8 405
XXII/13 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Singapore 8 452
XXII/14 Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 7 339
XXII/15 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Saudi Arabia 8 450
XXII/16 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Republic of Korea 8 441
XXII/17 Ratification of the Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the 4A 250
Montreal Protocol by Kazakhstan
XXII/18 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Vanuatu 8 467
XXII/19 Status of establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 258
Montreal Protocol
XXII/20 Treatment of stockpiled ozone-depleting substances 8 352
XXII/21 Administrative and financial matters: financial reports and budgets 13 551
XXII/22 Membership changes on the assessment panels 6 299, 314
XXII/23 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 358
XXII/24 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 501
XXII/25 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the 11 533
Montreal Protocol
XXII/26 Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 527

Layer: Approved 2010 and 2011 and proposed 2012 budgets
III Declaration on the global transition away from hydrochlorofluorocarbons 3.8 670
(HCFCs) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
78
Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties (Bali, 21–25 November 2011)

XXIII/1 Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and 16 564
Montreal Protocol
XXIII/2 Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2012 2 139
XXIII/3 Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace 2 140
XXIII/4 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2013 2 228
XXIII/5 Quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide 2 209
XXIII/6 Global laboratory and analytical-use exemption 2 153
MP DECISIONS
XXIII/7 Use of controlled substances as process agents 1 113
INDEX
XXIII/8 Investigation of carbon tetrachloride discrepancy 2 179
XXIII/9 Additional information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances 2 185
XXIII/10 Updating the nomination and operational processes of the Technology and 6 299
Economic Assessment Panel and its subsidiary bodies
XXIII/11 Montreal Protocol treatment of ozone-depleting substances used to service 4B 268
ships, including ships from other flag states
XXIII/12 Adoption of new destruction technologies for ozone-depleting substances 1 98
XXIII/13 Potential areas of focus for the 2014 quadrennial reports of the Scientific 6 301
Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and the
XXIII/14 Key challenges facing methyl bromide phase-out in parties operating under 2 194
paragraph 1 of Article 5
XXIII/15 2012–2014 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund 10 489
XXIII/16 Extension of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism to the 2012–2014 10 495
XXIII/17 Administrative and financial matters: financial reports and budgets 13 551
XXIII/18 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 358
XXIII/19 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 501
XXIII/20 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 533
Protocol
XXIII/21 Endorsement of a new co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options 6 315
Committee and a senior expert of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel
XXIII/22 Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of 7 339
XXIII/23 Potential non-compliance in 2009 with the provisions on consumption of the 8 422
controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), by Libya and request
XXIII/24 Difficulties faced by Iraq as a new party 8 410
XXIII/25 Non-reporting of 2009 data on hydrochlorofluorocarbons by Yemen in 7 347
accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol
XXIII/26 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the European Union 8 396
XXIII/27 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation 8 446
XXIII/28 Request by Tajikistan for the revision of its baseline data 7 329
XXIII/29 Requests for the revision of baseline data by Barbados, Bosnia and 7 329
Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Guyana, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Lesotho, Palau, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Togo, Tonga,
Vanuatu and Zimbabwe
XXIII/30 Decimal places to be used by the Secretariat in analysing and presenting 7 322
hydrochlorofluorocarbon data for 2011 and later years
XXIII/31 Status of the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 259
Montreal Protocol
XXIII/32 Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 527
XXIII/33 Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 527

I Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer: (not included)
79
approved 2011 and 2012 and proposed 2013 and 2014 budgets
II Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention: Scale of Contributions by the Parties (not included)
for 2012–2014 based on the United Nations scale of assessments
III Contributions by parties to the eighth replenishment of the Multilateral Fund (not included)
(2012, 2013 and 2014)
Layer: Approved 2011 and 2012 and proposed 2013 budgets
VI Summaries of presentations by members of the assessment panels and (not included)
technical options committees during the preparatory segment
VII Draft decision XXIII/[ ]: Funding for hydrochlorofluorocarbon production (not included)
MP DECISIONS
facilities: submission by India

INDEX
VIII Summary of presentation on the eighth meeting of the Ozone Research (not included)
Managers of the Parties to the Vienna Convention
IX Bali Declaration on Transitioning to Low Global Warming Potential 3.8 670
Alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances
80
Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties (Geneva, 12–16 November 2012)

XXIV/1 Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and 16 564
Montreal Protocol
XXIV/2 Application to Bahrain, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Chad, Ecuador, 4 244
Haiti, Kenya and Nicaragua of paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Montreal
Protocol with respect to the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol
XXIV/3 Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2013 2 140
XXIV/4 Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace 2 142
MP DECISIONS
XXIV/5 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2014 2 229
INDEX
XXIV/6 Feedstock uses 1 99
XXIV/7 Additional information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances 2 185
XXIV/8 Terms of reference, code of conduct and disclosure and conflict of interest 6 303
guidelines for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its
technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies
XXIV/9 Controlled substances used on ships 4B 269
XXIV/10 Review by the Scientific Assessment Panel of RC 316c 2 239
XXIV/11 Evaluation of the financial mechanism 10 515
XXIV/12 Differences between data reported on imports and data reported on exports 7 339
XXIV/13 Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of 7 339
XXIV/14 Reporting of zero in Article 7 data reporting forms 7 341
XXIV/15 Reporting of information on quarantine and pre shipment use of methyl 7 210
bromide
XXIV/16 Requests for the revision of baseline data by Algeria, Ecuador, Equatorial 7 330
Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, the Niger, the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia and Turkey
XXIV/17 Status of the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 260
Montreal Protocol
XXIV/18 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ukraine 8 463
XXIV/19 Membership changes on the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 6 315
XXIV/20 Endorsement of the new co-chair of the Environmental Effects Assessment 6 316
Panel
XXIV/21 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 359
XXIV/22 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 501
XXIV/23 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 533
Protocol
XXIV/24 Financial reports of the trust funds and budgets for the Montreal Protocol 13 552
XXIV/25 Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 527

Layer. Approved 2012 and 2013 and proposed 2014 budgets
II Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on the Substances that Deplete the (not included)
Ozone Layer. Scale of contributions by the parties for 2012 and 2013 based on
the United Nations scale of assessments
III Summaries of presentations by members of the assessment panels and (not included)
technical options committees
81
Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties (Bangkok, 21–25 October 2013)

XXV/1 Status of ratification of the Montreal and Beijing amendments to the 16 564
Montreal Protocol
XXV/2 Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2014 2 142
XXV/3 Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace 2 143
XXV/4 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2015 2 231
XXV/5 Response to the report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 2 186
on information on alternatives to ozone depleting substances (decision
XXIV/7, paragraph 1)
MP DECISIONS
XXV/6 Operation and organization of the Technology and Economic Assessment 6 311
INDEX
Panel
XXV/7 Changes in the membership of the Technology and Economic Assessment 6 316
Panel
XXV/8 Terms of reference for the study on the 2015–2017 replenishment of the 10 489
XXV/9 Implementation of the Montreal Protocol with regard to small island 5 577
developing States
XXV/10 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Azerbaijan 8 366
XXV/11 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by France 8 399
XXV/12 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kazakhstan 8 412
XXV/13 Requests for the revision of baseline data by the Congo, the Democratic 7 331
Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau and Saint Lucia
XXV/14 Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of 7 341
XXV/15 Status of the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 4B 260
Montreal Protocol
XXV/16 Request by Croatia to be removed from the list of developing countries 5 277
XXV/17 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 359
XXV/18 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 502
XXV/19 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 533
Protocol
XXV/20 Financial reports of the trust funds and budgets for the Montreal Protocol 13 553
XXV/21 Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 11 527

Layer. Proposed revision of the approved 2013 and proposed 2014 and 2015
budgets of the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol
Layer. Scale of contributions by the parties for 2014 based on the United
Nations scale of assessments
III Report of the co-chairs of the discussion group on issues on the management (not included)
of hydrofluorocarbons using the Montreal Protocol and its mechanisms
IV Summaries of presentations by members of the assessment panels and (not included)
82
Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties (Paris, 17–21 November 2014)

XXVI/1 Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and 16 564
Montreal Protocol
XXVI/2 Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2015 2 144
XXVI/3 Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon 113 for aerospace 2 144
XXVI/4 Essential-use exemption for laboratory and analytical uses for 2015 in China 2 154
XXVI/5 Global laboratory and analytical-use exemption use controlled substances, 2 155
XXVI/6 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2015 and 2016 2 232
DECISIONS
XXVI/7 Availability of recovered, recycled or reclaimed halons 2 176
XXVI/8 Measures to facilitate the monitoring of trade in hydrochlorofluorocarbons 2 325
MP
and substituting substances
XXVI/9 Response to the report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 2 187
on information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances
XXVI/10 2015–2017 Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund 10 490
XXVI/11 Extension of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism to the 2015–2017 10 495
XXVI/12 Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of 7 342
XXVI/13 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kazakhstan 8 413
XXVI/14 Requests for the revision of baseline data by Libya and Mozambique 7 331
XXVI/15 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Democratic People’s 8 386
Republic of Korea
XXVI/16 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Guatemala 8 403
XXVI/17 Membership changes in the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 6 317
XXVI/18 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 359
XXVI/19 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 502
XXVI/20 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 533
Protocol
XXVI/21 Financial reports and budgets for the Montreal Protocol 13 554
XXVI/22 Twenty-Seventh and Twenty-Eighth Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal 11 528
Protocol

I Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. (not included)
Approved budgets for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017
II Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. (not included)
Scale of contributions by the parties for 2015, 2016 and 2017 based on the
United Nations scale of assessments
III Contributions by parties to the ninth replenishment of the Multilateral Fund (not included)
(2015, 2016 and 2017)
IV Trust fund for the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the Ozone (not included)
Layer. Approved 2014 and 2015 and proposed 2016 budgets
Layer. Scale of contributions by the parties for 2015 based on the United
Nations scale of assessments
VI Summaries of presentations by members of the assessment panels and (not included)
83
Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties (Dubai, 1–5 November 2015)

XXVII/1 Dubai pathway on hydrofluorocarbons 2 195
XXVII/2 Essential-use exemption for laboratory and analytical uses for 2016 in China 2 155
XXVII/3 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2016 and 2017 2 234
XXVII/4 Response to the report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 2 188
XXVII/5 Issues related to the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons, 2 188
XXVII/6 Potential areas of focus for the 2018 quadrennial reports of the Scientific 6 311
Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and the
MP DECISIONS
XXVII/7 Investigation of carbon tetrachloride discrepancies 2 180

INDEX
XXVII/8 Avoiding the unwanted import of products and equipment containing or 2 250
relying on hydrochlorofluorocarbons
XXVII/9 Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of 7 342
XXVII/10 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bosnia and Herzegovina 8 378
XXVII/11 Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Libya 8 422
XXVII/12 Membership of the Implementation Committee 8 359
XXVII/13 Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 10 502
XXVII/14 Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 11 533
Protocol
XXVII/15 Changes in the membership of the Scientific Assessment Panel 6 317
XXVII/16 Technology and Economic Assessment Panel organizational and 6 318
membership changes
XXVII/17 Ensuring the continuation of the work of the Technology and Economic 2 180
Assessment Panel, its technical options committees, the Scientific
Assessment Panel and the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel
XXVII/18 Financial report and budget of the trust fund of the Montreal Protocol 13 555

I Trust fund for the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the Ozone (not included)
Layer. Approved revised 2015, approved 2016 and proposed 2017 budgets
(in United States dollars)
II Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 3.7 644
Ozone Layer. Scale of contributions by the parties for 2016 based on the
United Nations scale of assessments
III Summaries of presentations by members of the assessment panels and (not included)
84
Section 2 Decisions of the Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Article 1)
Decisions on controlled substances
Decision I/12A: Clarification of terms and definitions: Controlled substances (in bulk)
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/12A to agree to the following clarification of the definition of
controlled substances (in bulk) in Article 1, paragraph 4 of the Montreal Protocol:
(a) Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol excludes from consideration as a “controlled substance” any listed
substance, whether alone or in a mixture, which is in a manufactured product other than a container used
MP DECISIONS
for transportation or storage;
ARTICLE 1
(b) any amount of a controlled substance or a mixture of controlled substances which is not part of a use
system containing the substance is a controlled substance for the purpose of the Protocol (i.e. a bulk
chemical);
(c) if a substance or mixture must first be transferred from a bulk container to another container, vessel or
piece of equipment in order to realize its intended use, the first container is in fact utilized only for
storage and/or transport, and the substance or mixture so packaged is covered by Article 1, paragraph 4 of
the Protocol;
(d) if, on the other hand, the mere dispensing of the product from a container constitutes the intended use of
the substance, then that container is itself part of a use system and the substance contained in it is
therefore excluded from the definition;
(e) examples of use systems to be considered as products for the purposes of Article 1, paragraph 4 are inter
alia:
(i) an aerosol can;
(ii) a refrigerator or refrigerating plant, air conditioner or air-conditioning plant, heat pump, etc;
(iii) a polyurethane prepolymer or any foam containing, or manufactured with, a controlled substance;
(iv) a fire extinguisher (wheel or hand-operated) or an installed container incorporating a release device
(automatic or hand-operated);
(f) bulk containers for shipment of controlled substances and mixtures containing controlled substances to
users include (numbers being illustrative), inter alia:
(i) tanks installed on board ships;
(ii) rail tank cars (10–40 metric tons);
(iii) road tankers (up to 20 metric tons);
(iv) cylinders from 0.4 kg to one metric ton;
(v) drums (5–300 kg);
(g) because containers of all sizes are used for either bulk or manufactured products, distinguishing on the
basis of size is not consistent with the definition in the Protocol. Similarly, since containers for bulk or
manufactured products can be designed to be rechargeable or not rechargeable, rechargeability is not
sufficient for a consistent definition;
(h) if the purpose of the container is used as the distinguishing characteristic as in the Protocol definition,
such CFC or halon-containing products as aerosol spray cans and fire extinguishers, whether of the
85
portable or flooding type, would therefore be excluded, because it is the mere release from such
containers which constitute the intended use.
Decision I/12B: Clarification of terms and definitions: Controlled substances produced
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/12B:
(a) to agree to the following clarification on the definition of “controlled substances produced” in Article 1,
paragraph 5:
“Controlled substances produced” as used in Article 1, paragraph 5 is the calculated level of controlled
MP DECISIONS
substances manufactured by a Party. This excludes the calculated level of controlled substances entirely
ARTICLE 1
used as a feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals. Excluded also from the term “controlled
substances produced” is the calculated level of controlled substances derived from used controlled
substances through recycling or recovery processes;
(b) each Party should establish accounting procedures to implement this definition.
Decision II/4: Isomers
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/4 to clarify the definition of “controlled substance” in
paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the Protocol so that it is understood to include the isomers of such substances except
as specified in the relevant Annex.
Decision III/8: Trade names of controlled substances
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/8:
(a) to request the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (operating under Decision II/13 of the Second
Meeting of Parties to the Montreal Protocol) to compile a list of full and complete trade names, including
any numerical designations of substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol and the amended Montreal
Protocol, including mixtures containing controlled substances and to submit the list to the Secretariat by
the end of November 1991;
(b) to request the Secretariat to distribute by the end of March 1992, the list called for in (a) above, to all the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
Decision IV/10: Trade names of controlled substances
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/10 to note the list of trade names of controlled substances
compiled by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and distributed by the Secretariat to all
Governments in March 1992.
Decision IV/12: Clarification of the definition of controlled substances
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/12:
1. that insignificant quantities of controlled substances originating from inadvertent or coincidental

production during a manufacturing process, from unreacted feedstock, or from their use as process agents
which are present in chemical substances as trace impurities, or that are emitted during product
manufacture or handling, shall be considered not to be covered by the definition of a controlled substance
contained in paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol;
2. to urge Parties to take steps to minimize emissions of such substances, including such steps as avoidance
of the creation of such emissions, reduction of emissions using practicable control technologies or process
changes, containment or destruction;
3. to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel:
86
(a) to give an estimate of the total emissions resulting from trace impurities, emission during product
manufacture and handling losses;
(b) to submit its findings to the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol not
later than 31 March 1994.
Decision VIII/14: Further clarification of the definition of “Bulk substances” under decision
I/12A
The Eighth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VIII/14:
MP DECISIONS
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its
ARTICLE 1
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee pursuant to decision VII/7 of the Seventh Meeting of the
Parties;
2. To clarify decision I/12A of the First Meeting of the Parties as follows: trade and supply of methyl
bromide in cylinders or any other container will be regarded as trade in bulk in methyl bromide.
Decisions on destruction and banks
Decision I/12F: Clarification of terms and definitions: Destruction
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/12F with regard to destruction:
(a) to agree to the following clarification of the definition of Article 1, paragraph 5 of the Protocol:
“a destruction process is one which, when applied to controlled substances, results in the permanent
transformation, or decomposition of all or a significant portion of such substances”;
(b) to request the Panel for Technical Assessment to address this subject for the Parties to return to it at its
second and subsequent meetings with a view to determining whether it would be necessary to have a
Standing Technical Committee to review and recommend for approval by the Parties methods for
transformation or decomposition and to determine the amount of controlled substances that are
transformed or decomposed by each method.
Decision II/11: Destruction technologies
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/11 with regard to destruction technologies to establish an
Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Committee on Destruction Technologies and to appoint its Chairman, who shall
appoint in consultation with the Secretariat up to nine other members on the basis of nomination by Parties. The
members shall be experts on destruction technologies and selected with due reference to equitable geographical
distribution. The Committee shall analyze destruction technologies and assess their efficiency and environmental
acceptability and develop approval criteria and measurements. The Committee shall report regularly to meetings
of the Parties.
Decision III/10: Destruction technologies
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/10 to note the constitution of the Ad Hoc Technical
Advisory Committee on Destruction Technologies, established by the Second Meeting of the Parties, and to
request the Committee to submit a report to the Secretariat for presentation to the Fourth Meeting of the Parties,
in 1992 at least four months before the date set for that meeting;
Decision IV/11: Destruction technologies
1. to note the report of the Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Committee on Destruction Technologies and, in
particular, the recommendations contained therein;
87
2. to approve, for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the Protocol, those destruction technologies
that are listed in Annex VI to the report on the work of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties which are
operated in accordance with the suggested minimum standards identified in Annex VII to the report of the
Fourth Meeting of the Parties unless similar standards currently exist domestically; [see Section 3.1 in
this Handbook]
3. to call on each Party that operates, or plans to operate, facilities for the destruction of ozone-depleting
substances:
(a) to ensure that its destruction facilities are operated in accordance with the Code of Good
Housekeeping Procedures set out in section 5.5 of the report of the Ad Hoc Technical Advisory
MP DECISIONS
Committee on Destruction Technologies, unless similar procedures currently exist domestically; and
ARTICLE 1
(b) for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the Protocol, to provide each year, in its report under
Article 7 of the Protocol, statistical data on the actual quantities of ozone-depleting substances it has
destroyed, calculated on the basis of the destruction efficiency of the facility employed;
4. to clarify that the definition of destruction efficiency relates to the input and output of the destruction
process itself, not to the destruction facility as a whole;
5. to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, drawing on expertise as necessary:
(a) to reassess ozone-depleting substances destruction capacities;
(b) to evaluate emerging technology submissions;
(c) to prepare recommendations for consideration by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol at their annual
Meeting;
(d) to examine means to increase the number of such destruction facilities and making available the
utilization to developing countries which do not own or are unable to operate such facilities;
6. to list in Annex VI to the report on the work of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties approved destruction
technologies; [see Section 3.1 in this Handbook]
7. to facilitate access and transfer of approved destruction technologies in accordance with Article 10 of the
Protocol, together with provision for financial support under Article 10 of the Protocol for Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5.
Decision IV/26: International recycled halon bank management
1. to urge Parties to encourage recovery, recycling and reclamation of halons in order to meet the needs of
all Parties, particularly those operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;
2. to call upon Parties importing recovered or recycled substances in Group II of Annex A to apply, when
deciding on the use of those substances, the essential-use criteria set out in the 1991 report of the Halons
Technical Options Committee. The purpose of these criteria is to minimize the use of halons in non-
essential applications;
3. to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (Halons Technical Options Committee) to
undertake the following activities, and to report to the Secretariat and to request the Open-ended Working
Group of the Parties to consider the report and submit its recommendations to the Fifth Meeting of the
Parties:
(a) evaluation and comparison of existing and proposed recycled halon bank management programmes
and identify possible means of further facilitating international recycled halon bank management;
88
(b) identification of simple mechanisms to distinguish between virgin and recycled halons;
(c) investigation of appropriate technical standards and means to certify halons as suitable for re-use;
(d) investigation of possible legal and institutional barriers to the international trade in recovered and
recycled halons;
(e) investigation of means to avoid the export of halons:
(i) that are unsuitable for reclamation or recycling; and
(ii) in quantities that would encourage excessive dependence by the recipient countries;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 1
(f) investigation of the practical application of technologies to reclaim severely contaminated halons;
4. to request the Industry and Environment Programme Activity Centre of the United Nations Environment
Programme to function as a clearing-house for information relevant to international halon bank
management and further request the Centre to liaise with and coordinate its activities with the
implementing agencies designated under the Financial Mechanism to encourage Parties to provide
pertinent information to the above-mentioned clearing-house.
Decision V/15: International halon bank management
The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/15:
1. To note with appreciation the efforts of the Industry and Environment Programme Activity Centre of the
United Nations Environment Programme to function as a clearing-house for information relevant to
international halon bank management and to request it to continue its work in this field in cooperation
with the Halons Technical Options Committee, including holding details of all known halon banking
schemes and a list of those “banks” with halon for sale and particularly to emphasize regional halon
banking and international coordination of halon banks to supply the Parties operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 of the Protocol;
2. To encourage all Parties to submit information relevant to international halon bank management to the
Industry and Environment Programme Activity Centre of the United Nations Environment Programme.
Decision V/26: Destruction technologies
The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/26, further to decision IV/11 on destruction technologies:
(a) That there shall be added to the list of approved destruction technologies, which was set out in Annex VI
to the report of the work of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.1 in this Handbook], the
following technology:
Municipal solid waste incinerators (for foams containing ozone-depleting substances);
(b) To specify that pilot-scale as well as demonstration-scale destruction technologies should be operated in
accordance with the suggested minimum standards identified in Annex VII to the report of the Fourth
Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.1 in this Handbook] unless similar standards currently exist
domestically.
Decision VII/35: Destruction technology
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/35:
1. To note that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel examined the results of testing and verified
that the “radio frequency plasma destruction” technology of Japan meets the suggested minimum
emission standards that were approved by the Parties at their Fourth Meeting for destruction technologies;
89
2. To approve, for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the Protocol, the radio frequency plasma
destruction technology and to add it to the list of destruction technologies already approved by the
Parties.
Decision XII/8: Disposal of controlled substances
The Twelfth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XII/8:
Noting decisions II/11, III/10, IV/11, V/26 and VII/35 on destruction technologies and the previous work of the
Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Committee on Destruction Technologies;
MP DECISIONS
Also noting the innovations that have taken place in the field of destruction technologies since the last report of
ARTICLE 1
Advisory Committee;
Recognizing that the management of contaminated and surplus ozone-depleting substances would benefit from
further information on destruction technologies and an evaluation of disposal options;
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to establish a task force on destruction
technologies;
2. That the task force on destruction technologies shall:
(a) Report to the Parties at their Fourteenth Meeting in 2002 on the status of destruction technologies of
ozone-depleting substances, including an assessment of their environmental and economic
performance, as well as their commercial viability;
(b) When presenting its first report, include a recommendation on when additional reports would be
appropriate;
(c) Review existing criteria for the approval of destruction facilities, as provided for in section 2.4 of
the Handbook for the International Treaties for the Protection of the Ozone Layer;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel:
(a) To evaluate the technical and economic feasibility for the long-term management of contaminated
and surplus ozone-depleting substances in Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries, including options
such as long-term storage, transport, collection, reclamation and disposal of such ozone-depleting
substances;
(b) To consider possible linkages to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements
of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal and other international treaties as appropriate regarding the
issue of disposal;
(c) To report to the Parties on these issues at their Fourteenth Meeting in 2002.
Decision XIV/6: Status of destruction technologies of ozone-depleting substances, including

an assessment of their environmental and economic performance, as well as their commercial
viability
The Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIV/6:
1. To note with appreciation the Report of the Task Force on Destruction Technologies presented to the
twenty-second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;
2. To note that the Task Force has determined that the destruction technologies listed in paragraph 3 of this
decision meet the suggested minimum emission standards that were approved by the Parties at their
Fourth Meeting;
90
3. To approve the following destruction technologies for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the
Protocol, in addition to the technologies listed in annex VI to the report of the Fourth Meeting and
modified by decisions V/26 and VII/35:
(a) For CFC, HCFC and halons: argon plasma arc;
(b) For CFC and HCFC: nitrogen plasma arc, microwave plasma, gas phase catalytic dehalogenation
and super-heated steam reactor;
(c) For foam containing ODS: rotary kiln incinerator;
MP DECISIONS
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to update, in time for consideration by the
ARTICLE 1
twenty-third Open-ended Working Group, the Code of Good Housekeeping to provide guidance on
practices and measures that could be used to ensure that during the operation of the approved destruction
technologies, environmental release of ODS through all media and environmental impact of those
technologies is minimized;
5. To consider, at the twenty-fourth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, the need to review the
status of destruction technologies in 2005, including an assessment of their environmental and economic
performance, as well as their commercial viability.
Decision XV/9: Status of destruction technologies for ozone-depleting substances and code of
good housekeeping
The Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XV/9:
1. To recall that the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer does not require the
Parties to destroy ozone-depleting substances;
2. To note that the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel of April 2002 (volume 3,
report on the Task Force on Destruction Technologies) provides information on the technical and
economic performance and commercial viability of destruction technologies for ozone-depleting
substances;
3. To take note of the previous decisions of the Meeting of the Parties on the approval of destruction
technologies (decisions IV/11, VII/35 and XIV/6) and, in particular, to note that those decisions did not
distinguish between the capabilities of destruction technologies for specific types of ozone-depleting
substances;
4. To approve, for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol, the destruction
technologies listed as “approved” in annex II to the present report [see Section 3.1 in this Handbook],
which were found by the Task Force on Destruction Technologies to meet the destruction and removal
efficiencies set out therein;
5. To recognize that, in approving the technologies listed in annex I [see Section 3.1 in this Handbook], the
Parties acknowledge that two technologies previously approved for all ozone-depleting substances have
been limited in their scope to omit halons;
6. To call on each Party that operates, or plans to operate, approved technologies in accordance with
paragraph 2 above to ensure that its destruction facilities are operated in accordance with the Code of
Good Housekeeping Procedures, contained in annex III to the present report [see Section 3.1 in this
Handbook], as updated in the progress report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in May
2003 and subsequently amended by the Parties, unless similar or stricter procedures currently exist
domestically;
7. To highlight the need for Parties to pay particular attention to the adherence of facilities for the
destruction of ozone-depleting substances to relevant international or national standards addressing
91
hazardous substances and taking into account cross-media emissions and discharges, including those
identified in annex IV to the present report [see Section 3.1 in this Handbook].
Decision XV/10: Handling and destruction of foams containing ozone-depleting substances at

the end of their life
The Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XV/10 to request the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, in its April 2005 report:
(a) To provide updated useful information on the handling and destruction of ozone-depleting substance-
containing thermal insulation foams including thermal foams situated in buildings, with particular
MP DECISIONS
attention to the economic and technological implications;

ARTICLE 1
(b) To clarify the distinction between the destruction efficiency achievable for ozone-depleting substances
recovered from foams prior to destruction (reconcentrated) and the destruction efficiency achievable for
the foams themselves containing ozone-depleting substances (dilute source).
Decision XVI/15: Review of approved destruction technologies pursuant to decision XIV/6 of

the Parties
The Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVI/15:
Recalling the report of the task force on destruction technologies presented to the Parties at the twenty-second
meeting of the Open-ended Working Group,
Noting the need to keep the list of approved destruction technologies up-to-date,
Mindful of the need to minimize any additional workload for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,
1. To request the initial co-chairs of the task force on destruction technologies to reconvene in order to
solicit information from the technology proponents exclusively on destruction technologies identified as
“emerging” in the 2002 report of the task force on destruction technologies;
2. Further to request the co-chairs, if new information is available, to evaluate and report, based on the
development status of these emerging technologies, whether they warrant consideration for addition to
the list of approved destruction technologies;
3. To request that that report be presented through the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to the
Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-fifth meeting.
Decision XVII/17: Technical and financial implications of the environmentally sound

destruction of concentrated and diluted sources of ozone-depleting substances
The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVII/17:
Recognizing that, in the preamble to the Montreal Protocol, the Parties affirmed that, for the protection of the
ozone layer, precautionary measures should be taken to control equitably total global emissions of substances
that deplete it, with the ultimate objective of their elimination on the basis of developments in scientific
knowledge,
Bearing in mind that, for most Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, chlorofluorocarbons which
remain to be phased out are concentrated in the refrigeration servicing sector and that, as a result, their final
elimination will only be achieved when all existing installed equipment has been replaced,
Considering that the replacement of such equipment necessitates a range of complex activities, including, among
other things, economic incentives for end-users and the development of recovery, transport and environmentally
sound destruction processes for obsolete equipment, with particular attention paid to training for this purpose
and to the destruction of the chlorofluorocarbons released by such processes,
92
Noting the outcomes of the expert meeting on destruction of ozone depleting substances that will be held in
Montreal from 22 to 24 February 2006,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare terms of reference for the conduct
of case-studies in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, with regional
representation, on the technology and costs associated with a process for the replacement of
chlorofluorocarbon-containing refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, including the
environmentally sound recovery, transport and final disposal of such equipment and of the associated
chlorofluorocarbons;
2. That these studies should explore economic and other incentives which will encourage users to phase out
MP DECISIONS
equipment and ozone-depleting substances and to reduce emissions, as well as the viability and costs of
ARTICLE 1
setting up destruction facilities in countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, and
that the said studies should include a regional analysis relating to the management, transport and
destruction of chlorofluorocarbons;
3. Also to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review possible synergies with other
conventions such as the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and their Disposal, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for
Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants;
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to adopt the recovery and destruction
efficiency parameter proposed in the Panel’s report to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-fifth
meeting as the parameter to be applied in developing the proposed study referred to above;
5. That said terms of reference shall be submitted to the Parties at the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-
ended Working Group, and that provision will be made for resources for this purpose in the 2006–2008
replenishment of the Multilateral Fund.
Decision XVII/18: Request for assistance of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
for the meeting of experts on destruction
Noting decision 47/52 of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol adopted at its forty-seventh meeting, requesting the secretariat of the Multilateral Fund to
convene a meeting of experts in Montreal, from 22 to 24 February 2006,
Recalling that the Multilateral Fund secretariat was requested to recruit consultants to collect and prepare data on
this subject for dissemination to participants in the meeting of experts and to develop a standard format for
reporting data on unwanted, recoverable, reclaimable, non-reusable and virgin stockpiled ozone-depleting
substances,
To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees to submit to
the Multilateral Fund secretariat available data to enable the Multilateral Fund secretariat to assess the extent of
current and future requirements for the collection and disposition (emissions, export, reclamation and
destruction) of non-reusable and unwanted ozone-depleting substances in Article 5 Parties in pursuance of
decision 47/52.
Decision XVIII/9: Review of draft terms of reference for case studies called for under decision
XVII/17 on environmentally sound destruction of ozone-depleting substances
The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVIII/9:
Noting decision XVII/17, in which the Parties requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to
prepare terms of reference for the conduct of case studies in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of
the Montreal Protocol, with regional representation, on the technology and costs associated with a process for
93
the replacement of chlorofluorocarbon-containing refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, including the

environmentally sound recovery, transport and final disposal of such equipment and of the associated
chlorofluorocarbons,
Noting that the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol,
pursuant to its decision 46/36, is considering terms of reference, a budget and modalities for a study on
collection, recovery, recycling, reclamation, transportation and destruction of unwanted ozone-depleting
substances,
Noting also decision 49/36 of the Executive Committee, in which the Executive Committee expresses its
willingness to develop consolidated terms of reference and initiate a study accordingly,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 1
1. To request the Executive Committee to develop consolidated terms of reference taking into account the
elements referred to in both the draft terms of reference submitted to the Eighteenth Meeting of the
Parties pursuant to decision XVII/17 and the terms of reference developed by the Multilateral Fund
secretariat on the collection, recovery, recycling, reclamation, transportation, and destruction of unwanted
ozone-depleting substances;
2. To request the Executive Committee to conduct, as soon as possible, a study based on the resulting terms
of reference and to provide a progress report to the Nineteenth Meeting of Parties, with a final report for
consideration at the twenty-eighth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.
Decision XX/7: Environmentally sound management of banks of ozone-depleting substances
The Twentieth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XX/7:
1. To invite Parties, international funding agencies, including the Multilateral Fund and the Global
Environment Facility, and other interested agents to enable practical solutions for the purpose of gaining
better knowledge on mitigating ozone-depleting substance emissions and destroying ozone-depleting
substance banks, and on costs related to the collection, transportation, storage and destruction of ozone
depleting substances, notably in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal
Protocol;
2. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to consider as a matter of urgency
commencing pilot projects that may cover the collection, transport, storage and destruction of ozone-
depleting substances. As an initial priority, the Executive Committee might consider projects with a
focus on assembled stocks of ozone-depleting substances with high net global warming potential, in a
representative sample of regionally diverse Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5. It is
understood that this initial priority would not preclude the initiation of other types of pilot projects,
including on halons and carbon tetrachloride, should these have an important demonstration value. In
addition to protecting the ozone layer, these projects will seek to generate practical data and experience
on management and financing modalities, achieve climate benefits, and would explore opportunities to
leverage co-financing;
3. To encourage Parties to develop or consider further improvements in the implementation of national

and/or regional legislative strategies and other measures that prevent the venting, leakage or emission of
ozone-depleting substances by ensuring:
(a) Proper recovery of ozone-depleting substances from equipment containing ozone-depleting

substances, during servicing, use and at end of life, where possible in applications such as
refrigeration, air conditioning, heat pumps, fire protection, solvents and process agents;
(b) The use of best practices and performance standards to prevent ozone-depleting substance emissions
at the end of the product life cycle, whether by recovery, recycling, reclamation, reuse as feedstock
or destruction;
94
4. To encourage all Parties to develop or consider improvements in national or regional strategies for the
management of banks, including provisions to combat illegal trade by applying measures listed in
decision XIX/12;
5. To invite Parties to submit their strategies and subsequent updates to the Ozone Secretariat as soon as
possible for the purpose of sharing information and experiences, including with interested stakeholders of
other multilateral environmental agreements, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The strategies will be placed on the Ozone
Secretariat website, which will be updated regularly;
6. To note that any project implemented pursuant to the present decision when applicable should be done in
MP DECISIONS
conformity with national, regional, and/or international requirements, such as those mandated by the
ARTICLE 1
Basel Convention and Rotterdam Convention;
7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit
analysis of destroying banks of ozone-depleting substances taking into consideration the relative
economic costs and environmental benefits, to the ozone layer and the climate, of destruction versus
recycling, reclaiming and reusing such substances. In particular, the report should cover the following
elements:
(a) Consolidation of all available data on ozone-depleting substance banks and summary of this
information identifying the sectors where recovery of ozone-depleting substances is technically and
economically feasible;
(b) Respective levels of likely mitigation amounts, based on the categorization of reachable banks at
low, medium, and high effort according to substances, sectors, regions, and where possible,
subregions;
(c) Assessment of associated benefits and costs of respective classes of banks in terms of ozone
depleting potential and global warming potential;
(d) Exploration of the potential “perverse incentives” or other adverse environmental effects that may
be associated with certain mitigation strategies, in particular related to recovery and recycling for
reuse;
(e) Consideration of the positive and negative impacts of recovery and destruction of ozone-depleting
substances, including direct and indirect climate effects;
(f) Consideration of the technical, economic and environmental implications of incentive mechanisms
to promote the destruction of surplus ozone-depleting substances;
8. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide an interim report in time for
dissemination one month before the twenty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and to
provide the final report one month before the Twenty First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol;
9. To request the Ozone Secretariat, with the assistance of the Multilateral Fund Secretariat, to consult with
experts from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Global Environment
Facility, the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism, the World Bank and other relevant
funding experts to develop a report on possible funding opportunities for the management and destruction
of ozone-depleting substance banks, to present the report to the Parties for review and comments one
month prior to the twenty-ninth meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group and, if possible, to convene a
single meeting among experts from the funding institutions;
10. That the report referred to in paragraph 9 of the present decision would focus on describing possible
institutional arrangements, potential financial structures, likely logistical steps and the necessary legal
framework for each of the following, if relevant:
(a) Recovery;
95
(b) Collection;
(c) Storage;
(d) Transport;
(e) Destruction;
(f) Supporting activities;
11. To request the Ozone Secretariat to convene a workshop among Parties that will include the participation
of the Montreal Protocol assessment panels, the secretariat of the Multilateral Fund and the Fund’s
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 1
implementing agencies, and seek the participation of the secretariats of other relevant multilateral
environmental agreements, non-governmental organizations and experts from funding institutions for the
discussion of technical, financial and policy issues related to the management and destruction of ozone-
depleting substance banks and their implications for climate change;
12. That the above workshop will be held preceding the twenty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working
Group and that interpretation will be provided in the six official languages of the United Nations;
13. Further to consider, at the twenty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, possible actions
regarding the management and destruction of banks of ozone-depleting substances in the light of the
report to be provided by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel under paragraph 7 above, the
working group report to be provided by the Secretariat under paragraph 9 above and the discussions
emanating from the workshop under paragraph 11 above;
14. To request the Ozone Secretariat to communicate the present decision to the Secretariat of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol in time for possible
consideration at the fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention and fourth
meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on
the understanding that the decision is without prejudice to any discussions that may be held on ozone-
depleting substance banks within their forum.
Decision XXI/2: Environmentally sound management of banks of ozone-depleting substances
The Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXI/2:
Recalling Decision XX/7 which called for further study on the size and scope of banks of ozone-depleting
substances and requesting the Multilateral Fund to initiate pilot projects on destruction with a view to developing
practical data and experience,
Understanding that any such projects approved under the Multilateral Fund would be implemented consistent
with national laws and international agreements related to wastes,
Noting the significant climate change and ozone layer benefits associated with destroying many types of ozone-
depleting substances;
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat to host a one-day seminar on the margins of the 30th meeting of the
Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on the topic of how to identify and
mobilize funds, including funds additional to those being provided under the Multilateral Fund, for
ozone-depleting substance destruction, and further requests the Ozone Secretariat to invite the
Multilateral Fund and the Global Environment Facility to consider co-coordinating this effort, and to
invite other relevant institutions to attend the seminar;
2. To request the Executive Committee to continue its consideration of further pilot projects in Article 5
Parties pursuant to decision XX/7, and in that context, to consider the costs of a one-time window within
its current destruction activities to address the export and environmentally sound disposal of assembled
banks of ozone-depleting substances in low-volume-consuming countries that are not usable in the Party
of origin;
96
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review those destruction technologies
identified in its 2002 report as having a high potential, and any other technologies, and to report back to
the 30th meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on these technologies and their commercial and
technical availability;
4. To agree that the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund should develop and implement, as
expeditiously as possible, a methodology to verify the climate benefits and costs associated with
Multilateral Fund projects to destroy banks of ozone-depleting substances, and should make such
information publicly available on a project-level basis;
5. To request the Executive Committee to continue its deliberations on a special facility and to report on
MP DECISIONS
these deliberations, including possible options for such a facility as appropriate, to the 30th meeting of the
ARTICLE 1
Open-ended Working Group as an agenda item.
6. To call upon Parties, and institutions not traditionally contributing to the financial mechanism, to consider
making additional support available to the Multilateral Fund for destruction of ozone-depleting
substances, if they are in a position to do so;
7. To request the Executive Committee to report annually on the results of destruction projects to the
Meeting of the Parties, and to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, based on this,
and other available information, to suggest to the thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group
components designed to help Parties of diverse size and with diverse wastes to develop national and/or
regional strategic approaches to address the environmentally sound disposal of the banks of ozone-
depleting substances that are present in their countries and/or regions. In addition, this information
should be available to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Parties to inform the
consideration of the financial implications for the Multilateral Fund and other funding sources of
addressing the destruction of ozone-depleting-substance banks.
Decision XXII/10: Destruction technologies with regard to ozone-depleting substances
The Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXII/10:
Recalling the work of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its associated task forces in
assessing existing and emerging destruction technologies and in making recommendations for technologies to be
added to the list of approved destruction technologies, as last requested in decision XVI/15,
Noting with appreciation the organization and content of the seminar on the environmentally sound management
of banks of ozone-depleting substances held pursuant to decision XXI/2,
Acknowledging that one of the significant themes of the seminar was the need to ensure the appropriate
destruction of ozone-depleting substances recovered from products and equipment at the end of their lives and
that criteria for the verification of destruction of ozone-depleting substances would contribute to increased
confidence in destruction capabilities in a number of regions of the world, including in parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol,
Noting that the Code of Good Housekeeping Procedures set out in annex III to the report of the Fifteenth
Meeting of the Parties in accordance with paragraph 6 of decision XV/9 provides a useful basis for local
management in respect of the appropriate handling, transportation, monitoring, measurement and control of
ozone-depleting substances in destruction facilities but does not provide a framework that can be used for
comprehensive verification,
Recalling decision XV/9 on the approval of destruction technologies and annex II to the report of the Fifteenth
Meeting of the Parties, which lists approved destruction processes by source and destruction method,
Recalling also that, by paragraph (c) of decision VII/5 and paragraph 7 of decision XI/13, parties are urged to
adopt recovery and recycling technologies for quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide, to the extent
technically and economically feasible, until alternatives are available,
97
Recalling further that, by paragraph 6 of decision XX/6, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is
requested, in its report on opportunities for reductions in methyl bromide use or emissions for quarantine and
pre-shipment purposes, to provide to the Meeting of the Parties a list of available methyl bromide recapture
technologies for consideration by the parties,
Noting that the Panel was able to provide a list of examples of commercial recapture units in operation in several
countries in its report to the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties,
Noting also that the Panel has reported on a number of emerging technologies for the destruction of ozone-
depleting substances that complement those reported on previously,
MP DECISIONS
1. To request the Panel and the relevant technical options committees, in consultation with other relevant
ARTICLE 1
experts, for consideration at the thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and with a view to
possible inclusion in the Montreal Protocol handbook:
(a) To evaluate and recommend the appropriate destruction and removal efficiency for methyl bromide
and to update the destruction and removal efficiency for any other substance already listed in annex
II to the report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties;
(b) To review the list of destruction technologies adopted by parties, taking into account emerging
technologies identified in its 2010 progress report and any other developments in this sector, and to
provide an evaluation of their performance and commercial and technical availability;
(c) To develop criteria that should be used to verify the destruction of ozone-depleting substances at
facilities that use approved ozone-depleting-substance destruction technologies, taking into account
the recommended destruction and removal efficiencies for the relevant substance;
2. To invite submissions to the Ozone Secretariat by 1 February 2011 of data relevant to the tasks set out in
paragraph 1 above.
Decision XXIII/12: Adoption of new destruction technologies for ozone-depleting substances
The Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXIII/12:
Noting with appreciation of the report of the task force established by the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel in response to decision XXII/10 on destruction technologies for ozone-depleting substances,
Noting that the task force recommends the addition of four technologies to the list of destruction processes
approved by the parties and indicates that there is insufficient information to recommend one technology deemed
to hold high potential,
1. To approve the highlighted destruction processes in the annex to the present decision for the purposes of
paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol, as additions to the technologies listed in annex VI to
the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties and modified by decisions V/26, VII/35 and XIV/6 [see
Section 3.1 in this Handbook];
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue to assess the plasma destruction
technology for methyl bromide in the light of any additional information that may become available and
to report to the parties when appropriate;
3. Also to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue to investigate the issues
raised in its 2011 progress report regarding performance criteria for destruction and removal efficiency
compared to destruction efficiency, and regarding verification criteria for the destruction of ozone-
depleting substances at facilities that use approved destruction technologies, and to submit a final report
to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting.
98
Decisions on feedstock
Decision VII/30: Export and import of controlled substances to be used as feedstock
1. That the amount of controlled substances produced and exported for the purpose of being entirely used as
feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals in importing countries should not be the subject of the
calculation of “production” or “consumption” in exporting countries. Importers shall, prior to export,
provide exporters with a commitment that the controlled substances imported shall be used for this
purpose. In addition, importing countries shall report to the Secretariat on the volumes of controlled
MP DECISIONS
substances imported for these purposes;
ARTICLE 1
2. That the amount of controlled substances entirely used as feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals
should not be the subject of calculation of “consumption” in importing countries.
Decision X/12: Emissions of ozone-depleting substances from feedstock applications
The Tenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. X/12:
Noting the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel that emissions from the use of carbon
tetrachloride as feedstock in the manufacture of CFCs are estimated to be around 30,000 tonnes per year,
Concerned that this level of emissions may pose a threat to the ozone layer,
Aware that technology exists to reduce such emissions,
To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to investigate further and to report to the Parties at
their Twelfth Meeting on:
(a) Emissions of carbon tetrachloride from its use as feedstock, including currently available and future
possible options individual Parties may consider for the reduction of such emissions;
(b) Emissions of other ozone-depleting substances arising from the use of controlled substances as
feedstock;
(c) The impact of CFC production phase-out on the future use of carbon tetrachloride as feedstock and
emissions from such use.
Decision XXIV/6: Feedstock uses
The Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXIV/6:
Recalling Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol, which mandates, inter alia, reporting on amounts of controlled
substances used for feedstock,
Recalling paragraph 1 of decision VII/30, in which, inter alia, the parties specified that importing countries shall
report the quantities of ozone-depleting substances imported for feedstock uses and that importers shall, prior to
export, provide exporters with a commitment that the substances imported shall be used for this purpose,
Recalling also decision IV/12, in which the parties clarified that insignificant quantities of ozone-depleting
substances originating from inadvertent or coincidental production during a manufacturing process, from
unreacted feedstock, or from their use as process agents which are present in chemical substances as trace
impurities, or that are emitted during product manufacture or handling, shall be considered not to be covered by
the definition of an ozone-depleting substance contained in paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol,
99
Recalling further that in decision IV/12, the parties were urged to take steps to minimize emissions of such
substances, including such steps as avoidance of the creation of such emissions and reduction of emissions using
practicable control technologies or process changes, containment or destruction,
1. To encourage parties to exchange information on known alternatives being applied to replace ozone-
depleting substances in feedstock uses;
2. To encourage parties with feedstock uses to exchange information on systems they have in place for
qualifying a specific ozone depleting substance use as feedstock use and for identification and/or
monitoring of containers placed on the market and intended for feedstock uses, for example reporting or
labelling requirements;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 1
3. To confirm that the use of carbon tetrachloride in the production of vinyl chloride monomer by pyrolysis
of ethylene dichloride in the processes evaluated by the Panel in its 2012 progress report is considered to
be a feedstock use;
4. To request parties with vinyl chloride monomer production facilities in which carbon tetrachloride is used
and that have not yet reported the information requested by the parties in decision XXIII/7 to provide such
information to the Panel before 28 February 2013 to allow it to clarify whether the use in a particular
facility is a feedstock use or process agent use.
Decisions on process agents
Decision IV/12: Clarification of the definition of controlled substances
1. that insignificant quantities of controlled substances originating from inadvertent or coincidental

production during a manufacturing process, from unreacted feedstock, or from their use as process agents
which are present in chemical substances as trace impurities, or that are emitted during product
manufacture or handling, shall be considered not to be covered by the definition of a controlled substance
contained in paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol;
2. to urge Parties to take steps to minimize emissions of such substances, including such steps as avoidance
of the creation of such emissions, reduction of emissions using practicable control technologies or process
changes, containment or destruction;
(a) to give an estimate of the total emissions resulting from trace impurities, emission during product
manufacture and handling losses;
(b) to submit its findings to the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol not
later than 31 March 1994.
Decision VI/10: Use of controlled substances as process agents
The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/10, taking into account:
That some Parties may have interpreted use of controlled substances in some applications where they are used as
process agents as feedstock application;
That other Parties have interpreted similar applications as use and thereby subject to phase-out;
That the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel has been unable to recommend exemption, under the
essential use criteria, to Parties submitting applications of such uses nominated in 1994; and
The pressing requirement for elaboration of the issue and the need for appropriate action by all Parties;
100
(a) To identify uses of controlled substances as chemical process agents;
(b) To estimate emissions of controlled substances when used as chemical process agents and the
ultimate fate of such emissions and to evaluate emissions associated with the different control
technologies and other process conditions under which chemical process agents are used;
(c) To evaluate alternative process agents or technologies or products available to replace controlled
substances in such uses; and
(d) To submit its findings to the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol not
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 1
later than March 1995, and to request the Open-ended Working Group to formulate
recommendations, if any, for the consideration of the Parties at their Seventh Meeting;
2. That Parties, for an interim period of 1996 only, treat chemical process agents in a manner similar to
feedstock, as recommended by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, and take a final
decision on such treatment at their Seventh Meeting.
Decision VII/10: Continued uses of controlled substances as chemical process agents after
1996
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/10, recognizing the need to restrict emissions of ozone-
depleting substances from process-agent applications,
1. To continue to treat process agents in a manner similar to feedstocks only for 1996 and 1997;
2. To decide in 1997, following recommendations by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and
its relevant subgroups, on modalities and criteria for a continued use of controlled substances as process
agents, and on restricting their emissions, for 1998 and beyond.
Decision X/14: Process agents
Noting with appreciation the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Process
Agent Task Force in response to decision VII/10,
Noting the findings of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel that emissions from the use of
ozone-depleting substances as process agents in non-Article 5 Parties are comparable in quantity to the
insignificant emissions of controlled substances from feedstock uses, and that yet further reductions in
use and emissions are expected by 2000,
Noting also the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel's findings that emissions from the use of
controlled substances as process agents in countries operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, are already
significant and will continue to grow if no action is taken,
Recognizing the usefulness of having the controlled substances produced and used as process agents
clearly delineated within the Montreal Protocol,
1. That, for the purposes of this decision, the term “process agents” should be understood to mean the use of
controlled substances for the applications listed in table A below;
2. For non-Article 5 Parties, to treat process agents in a manner similar to feedstock for 1998 and until 31
December 2001;
3. That quantities of controlled substances produced or imported for the purpose of being used as process
agents in plants and installations in operation before 1 January 1999, should not be taken into account in
the calculation of production and consumption from 1 January 2002 onwards, provided that:
101
(a) In the case of non-Article 5 Parties, the emissions of controlled substances from these processes
have been reduced to insignificant levels as defined for the purposes of this decision in table B
below;
(b) In the case of Article 5 Parties, the emissions of controlled substances from process-agent use have
been reduced to levels agreed by the Executive Committee to be reasonably achievable in a cost–
effective manner without undue abandonment of infrastructure. In so deciding, the Executive
Committee may consider a range of options as set out in paragraph 5 below;
4. That all Parties should:

MP DECISIONS
(a) Report to the Secretariat by 30 September 2000 and each year thereafter on their use of controlled
ARTICLE 1
substances as process agents, the levels of emissions from those uses and the containment
technologies used by them to minimize emissions of controlled substances. Those non-Article 5
Parties which have still not reported data for inclusion in tables A and B are urged to do so as soon
as possible and in any case before the nineteenth meeting of the Open Ended Working Group;
(b) In reporting annual data to the Secretariat for 2000 and each year thereafter, provide information on
the quantities of controlled substances produced or imported by them for process-agent applications;
5. That the incremental costs of a range of cost-effective measures, including, for example, process
conversions, plant closures, emissions control technologies and industrial rationalization, to reduce
emissions of controlled substances from process-agent uses in Article 5 Parties to the levels referred to in
paragraph 3 (b) above should be eligible for funding in accordance with the rules and guidelines of the
Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund;
6. That the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund should, as a matter of priority, strive to develop
funding guidelines and begin to consider initial project proposals during 1999;
7. That Parties should not install or commission new plant using controlled substances as process agents
after 30 June 1999, unless the Meeting of the Parties has decided that the use in question meets the
criteria for essential uses under decision IV/25;
8. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Executive Committee to report to the
Meeting of the Parties in 2001 on the progress made in reducing emissions of controlled substances from
process-agent uses and on the implementation and development of emissions-reduction techniques and
alternative processes not using ozone-depleting substances and to review tables A and B of the present
decision and make recommendations for any necessary changes.
Table A: List of uses of controlled substances as process agents
No. Substance Process agent application

1 Carbon tetrachloride (CTC) Elimination of NCl3 in the production of chlorine and caustic
2 CTC Recovery of chlorine in tail gas from production of chlorine
3 CTC Manufacture of chlorinated rubber
4 CTC Manufacture of endosulphan (insecticide)
5 CTC Manufacture of isobutyl acetophenone (ibuprofen – analgesic)
6 CTC Manufacture of 1-1, Bis (4-chlorophenyl) 2,2,2- trichloroethanol (dicofol
insecticide)
7 CTC Manufacture of chlorosulphonated polyolefin (CSM)
8 CTC Manufacture of poly-phenylene-terephtal-amide
9 CFC 113 Manufacture of fluoropolymer resins
10 CFC 11 Manufacture of fine synthetic polyolefin fibre sheet
11 CTC Manufacture of styrene butadiene rubber
12 CTC Manufacture of chlorinated paraffin
13 CFC 113 Manufacture of vinorelbine (pharmaceutical product)
14 CFC 12 Photochemical synthesis of perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide precursors of Z-
perfluoropolyethers and difunctional derivatives
15 CFC 113 Reduction of perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide intermediate for production of
102
perfluoropolyether diesters
16 CFC 113 Preparation of perfluoropolyether diols with high functionality
17 CTC Production of pharmaceuticals – ketotifen, anticol and disulfiram
18 CTC Production of tralomethrine (insecticide)
19 CTC Bromohexine hydrochloride
20 CTC Diclofenac sodium
21 CTC Cloxacilin
22 CTC Phenyl glycine
23 CTC Isosorbid mononitrate
24 CTC Omeprazol
25 CFC-12 Manufacture of vaccine bottles
Note: Parties may propose additions to this list by sending details to the Secretariat, which will forward them to
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 1
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. The Panel will then investigate the proposed change and make
a recommendation to the Meeting of Parties whether or not the proposed use should be added to the list by
decision of the Parties.
Table B: Emission limits for process agent uses

(All figures are in metric tonnes per year)
Country/region Make-up or consumption Maximum emissions

European Community 1000 17
United States of America 2300 181
Canada 13 0
Japan 300 5
Hungary 15 0
Poland 68 0.5
Russian Federation 800 17
Australia 0 0
Czech Republic 0 0
Estonia 0 0
Lithuania 0 0
Slovakia 0 0
New Zealand 0 0
Norway 0 0
Iceland 0 0
Switzerland 5 0.4
TOTAL 4501 220.9 (4.9%)
Decision XIII/13: Request to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for the final
report on process agents
The Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIII/13:
Noting with appreciation the report of the Executive Committee in response to decision X/14 on process agents,
Noting the findings of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its request for additional data for the
finalization of its report,
Noting that in 2001 Parties provided the Ozone Secretariat with the requested additional data,
To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to finalize its evaluation, as requested by decision
X/14, and report to the Parties at the 22nd Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, in 2002.
Decision XV/6: List of uses of controlled substances as process agents
The Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XV/6 to adopt the following uses of controlled substances
as a revised table A for decision X/14:
Table: List of uses of controlled substances as process agents
103
No. Process agent application Substance

1 Elimination of NCl3 in the production of chlorine and caustic CTC
2 Recovery of chlorine in tail gas from production of chlorine CTC
3 Manufacture of chlorinated rubber CTC
4 Manufacture of endosulphan (insecticide) CTC
5 Manufacture of isobutyl acetophenone (ibuprofen – analgesic) CTC
6 Manufacture of 1-1, bis (4-chlorophenyl) 2,2,2- trichloroethanol CTC
(dicofol insecticide)
7 Manufacture of chlorosulphonated polyolefin (CSM) CTC
8 Manufacture of poly-phenylene-terephtal-amide CTC
9 Manufacture of fluoropolymer resins CFC-113
10 Manufacture of fine synthetic polyolefin fibre sheet CFC-11
MP DECISIONS
11 Manufacture of styrene butadiene rubber CTC

ARTICLE 1
12 Manufacture of chlorinated paraffin CTC

13 Photochemical synthesis of perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide precursors of CFC-12
Z-perfluoropolyethers and difunctional derivatives
14 Reduction of perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide intermediate for production of CFC-113
15 Preparation of perfluoropolyether diols with high functionality CFC-113
16 Bromohexine hydrochloride CTC
17 Diclofenac sodium CTC
18 Phenyl glycine CTC
19 Production of Cyclodime CTC
20 Production of chlorinated polypropene CTC
21 Production of chlorinated EVA CTC
22 Production of methyl isocyanate derivatives CTC
23 Production of 3-phenoxy benzaldehyde CTC
24 Production of 2-chloro-5-metyhlpyridine CTC
25 Production of Imidacloprid CTC
26 Production of Buprofenzin CTC
27 Production of Oxadiazon CTC
28 Production of chloradized N-methylaniline CTC
29 Production of Mefenacet CTC
30 Production of 1,3- dichlorobenzothiazole CTC
31 Bromination of a styrenic polymer BCM (bromochloro-methane)
Decision XV/7: Process agents
1. To note that decision X/14 called on the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Executive
Committee to review the list of process agent uses in table A of that decision, and to make appropriate
recommendations for changes to the table;
2. To note that several Parties are submitting requests to have certain uses reviewed by the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel for inclusion in table A of decision X/14 as process-agent uses;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review requests for consideration of
specific uses against decision X/14 criteria for process agents, and make recommendations to the Parties
annually on uses that could be added to or removed from table A of decision X/14;
4. To remind Article 5 Parties and non-Article 5 Parties with process-agent applications listed in table A to
decision X/14, as revised, that they shall report in accordance with paragraph 4 of decision X/14 on the
use of controlled substances as process agents, the levels of emissions from those uses, and the
containment technologies used by them to minimize emissions. In addition, Article 5 Parties with listed
uses in table A, as revised, shall report to the Executive Committee on progress in reducing emissions of
controlled substances from process-agent uses and on the implementation and development of emissions-
reduction techniques and alternative processes not using ozone-depleting substances;
104
Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-fifth session, and every other year thereafter unless the Parties
decide otherwise, on the progress made in reducing emissions of controlled substances from process-
agent uses and on the implementation and development of emissions-reduction techniques and alternative
processes not using ozone-depleting substances;
6. To note that, because the 2002 report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel lists the
process-agent applications in the table below as having non-negligible emissions, those applications are
to be considered process-agent uses of controlled substances in accordance with the provisions of
decision X/14 for 2004 and 2005, and are to be reconsidered at the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties
based on information reported in accordance with paragraph 4 of the present decision and paragraph 4 of
MP DECISIONS
decision X/14;
ARTICLE 1
7. To note that, because the two uses of controlled substances at the end of the table below were submitted
to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel but not formally reviewed, those applications are to
be considered process-agent uses of controlled substances in accordance with the provisions of decision
X/14 for 2004 and 2005, and are to be reconsidered at the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties based on
information reported in accordance with paragraph 4 of the present decision and paragraph 4 of decision
X/14.
Process agent application Party Substance

Elimination of NCl3 in the production of chlorine and Brazil CTC
caustic
Recovery of chlorine in tail gas from production of chlorine Brazil CTC
Manufacture of chlorinated rubber India, China CTC
Manufacture of endosulphan (insecticide) India CTC
Manufacture of isobutyl acetophenone India CTC
(ibuprofen - analgesic)
Manufacture of 1,1 bis (4-chlorophenyl) 2,2,2- India CTC
trichloroethanol (dicofol insecticide)
Manufacture of chlorosulphonated polyolefin (CSM) China CTC
Manufacture of styrene butadiene rubber Brazil, Republic of Korea CTC
Manufacture of chlorinated paraffin China CTC
Bromohexine hydrochloride India CTC
Diclofenac sodium India CTC
Phenyl glycine India CTC
Production of chlorinated polypropene China CTC
Production of chlorinated EVA China CTC
Production of methyl isocyanate derivatives China CTC
Production of 3-phenoxy benzaldehyde China CTC
Production of 2-chloro-5-methylpyridine China CTC
Production of Imidacloprid China CTC
Production of Buprofenzin China CTC
Production of Oxadiazon China CTC
Production of chloradized N-methylaniline China CTC
Production of Mefenacet China CTC
Production of 1,3- dichlorobenzothiazole China CTC
Bromination of a styrenic polymer USA BCM (bromochloro-
methane)
Production of high modulus polyethylene fibre USA CFC 113
Production of Losartan potassium Argentina BCM
Decision XVII/6: Process agents
Noting with appreciation the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,
Noting with appreciation the report by the Executive Committee on process-agent uses in Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/25/INF/4), which states that the
adoption of technology that results in zero emissions of ozone-depleting substances used as process agents has
105
become the norm for achieving phase-out in the process-agent sector in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Protocol,
1. To remind Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and Parties not so operating with process-
agent applications listed in table A to decision X/14, as revised, that they shall report annually in
accordance with paragraph 4 of decisions X/14 and XV/7, respectively, on the use of controlled
substances as process-agents;
2. In addition to paragraph 1 above, to request Parties that have emissive use of process-agent uses listed in
decisions XVII/7 and XVII/8 to submit data before 31 December 2006 to the Secretariat and the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on plant start-up date, annual capacity subject to applicable
MP DECISIONS
laws providing for commercial or other confidentiality protection, and make-up or consumption of
ARTICLE 1
controlled ozone-depleting substances, total emissions of ozone-depleting substances per year, and
confirm that the plant using the controlled substances has been in continuous operations since 30 June
1999;
3. To note that the process-agent applications listed in decision XVII/8 are to be considered as process-agent
uses in accordance with the provisions of decision X/14 and are to be confirmed as process agents at the
Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2007 based on the information reported in accordance with
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the present decision;
4. Where Parties install or commission new plant after 30 June 1999, using controlled substances as process
agents, to request Parties to submit their applications to the Ozone Secretariat and the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel by 31 December 2006, and by 31 December every subsequent year or
otherwise in a timely manner that allows the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to conduct an
appropriate analysis, for consideration subject to the criteria for essential uses under decision IV/25, in
accordance with paragraph 7 of decision X/14;
5. To agree that the exemptions referred to in decision X/14 are process-agent uses until a subsequent
decision of the Parties declares otherwise, and that the exemptions should not be permanent and should be
subject to regular review by the Parties with the aim of retaining or removing process-agent uses;
Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh meeting in 2007, and every other year thereafter unless
the Parties decide otherwise, on the progress made in reducing emissions of controlled substances from
process-agent uses; the associated make-up quantity of controlled substances; on the implementation and
development of emissions-reduction techniques and alternative processes and products not using ozone-
7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review the information submitted in
accordance with the present decision and to report and make recommendations to the Parties at their
Twentieth Meeting in 2008, and every other year thereafter, on process-agent use exemptions; on
insignificant emission associated with a use, and process-agent uses that could be added to or deleted
from table A of decision X/14;
8. To request Parties with process-agent uses to submit data to the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel by 31 December 2007 and 31 December of each subsequent year on opportunities to reduce
emissions listed in table B and for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review in 2008,
and every other year thereafter, emissions in table B of decision X/14, taking into account information
and data reported by the Parties in accordance with that decision, and to recommend any reductions to the
make-up and maximum emission on the basis of that review. On the basis of these recommendations, the
Parties shall decide on reductions to the make-up and maximum emissions with respect to table B.
106
Decision XVII/7: List of uses of controlled substances as process agents
The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVII/7 to adopt the following uses of controlled
substances as a revised table A for decision X/14:

1. Elimination of NCl3 in the production of chlorine and caustic CTC
2. Recovery of chlorine in tail gas from production of chlorine CTC
3. Manufacture of chlorinated rubber CTC
4. Manufacture of endosulphan (insecticide) CTC
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 1
5. Manufacture of isobutyl acetophenone (ibuprofen – analgesic) CTC
6. Manufacture of 1-1, bis (4-chlorophenyl) 2,2,2- trichloroethanol (dicofol CTC
insecticide)
7. Manufacture of chlorosulphonated polyolefin (CSM) CTC
8. Manufacture of poly-phenylene-terephtal-amide CTC
9. Manufacture of fluoropolymer resins CFC-113
10. Manufacture of fine synthetic polyolefin fibre sheet CFC-11
11. Manufacture of styrene butadiene rubber CTC
12. Manufacture of chlorinated paraffin CTC
13. Photochemical synthesis of perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide precursors of Z- CFC-12
perfluoropolyethers and difunctional derivatives
14. Reduction of perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide intermediate for production of CFC-113
15. Preparation of perfluoropolyether diols with high functionality CFC-113
16. Bromohexine hydrochloride CTC
17. Diclofenac sodium CTC
18. Phenyl glycine CTC
19. Production of Cyclodime CTC
20. Production of chlorinated polypropene CTC
21. Production of chlorinated EVA CTC
22. Production of methyl isocyanate derivatives CTC
23. Production of 3-phenoxy benzaldehyde CTC
24. Production of 2-chloro-5-methylpyridine CTC
25. Production of Imidacloprid CTC
26. Production of Buprofenzin CTC
27. Production of Oxadiazon CTC
28. Production of chloradized N-methylaniline CTC
29. Production of Mefenacet CTC
30. Production of 1,3- dichlorobenzothiazole CTC
31. Bromination of a styrenic polymer BCM (bromochloromethane)
32. Synthesis of ascorbic acid CTC
33. Synthesis of ciprofloxacin CTC
34. Synthesis of norfloxacin CTC
35. Synthesis of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid CTC
36. Synthesis of diperoxydicarbonate CTC
37. Production of sodium dichloroisocyanurate CTC
38. Production of radio-labelled cyanocobalamin CTC
39. Production of high modulus polyethylene fibre CFC-113
Decision XVII/8: List of uses of controlled substances as process agents
The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVII/8 to adopt the following uses of controlled
substances as an interim table A bis for decision X/14, subject to reconfirmation and inclusion in a reassessed
table A for decision X/14 at the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2007;
Table A-bis: Interim list of uses of controlled substances as process agents

40. Production of p-Bromobenzaldehyde (intermediate)
107
41. Production of fenvalerate (pesticide) CTC

42. Manufacture of Losartan Potassium BCM
43. Production of 1,2-Chloro-1,4-Naphthoquinone (pharmaceutical) CTC
44. Production of Prallethrin (pesticide) CTC
45. Production of 2-Methoxybenzoylchloride (pharmaceutical) CTC
46. Production of o-Nitrobenzaldehyde (dyes) CTC
47. Production of Salimusk (perfume) CTC
48. Production of Epoxiconazole (pesticide) CTC
49. Production of benzophenone (chemical) CTC
50. Production of Picloram; Lontrel (pesticides) CTC
51. Production of 3-Methyl-2-Thiophenecarboxaldehyde (pesticide, pharma.) CTC
52. Production of Difenoconazole (pesticide) CTC
MP DECISIONS
53. Production of 2-Thiophenecarboxaldehyde (intermediate) CTC

ARTICLE 1
54. Production of 2-Thiophene ethanol (pharmaceutical) CTC

55. Production of 5-Amino-1,2,3-thiadiazol CTC
56. Production of Levofloxacin (pharmaceutical) CTC
57. Production of Cinnamic acid (intermediate) CTC
58. Production of Ertaczo (pharmaceutical) CTC
59. Production of 3,5-Dinitrobenzoyl chloride (3,5-DNBC) (intermediate) CTC
60. Production of Fipronil (pesticide) CTC
61. Processing of Aluminium, Uranium CTC, CFC
62. Production of Furfural (volume chemical) CTC
63. Production of 3,3,3-trifluoropropene (volume chemical) CTC
64. Production of Triphenylmethylchloride (intermediate) CTC
65. Production of Tetrachlorodimethylmethane (volume chemical) CTC
66. Production of 4,4`-difluorodiphenylketone (intermediate) CTC
67. Production of 4-trifluoromethoxybenzenamine CTC
68. Production of 1,2-benzisothiazol-3-ketone CTC
Decision XIX/15: Replacement of table A and table A-bis in relevant process agent decisions
The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIX/15 to adopt the table in the annex to the present
decision as a list of process agent applications to replace table A of decision X/14 as it was amended in decision
XVII/7 and to replace table A-bis in decision XVII/8.
Table A. List of uses of controlled substances as process agents
Process ODS
1 Elimination of NCl3 in chlor-alkali production CTC
2 Chlorine recovery by tail gas absorption in chlor-alkali production CTC
3 Production of chlorinated rubber CTC
4 Production of endosulfan CTC
5 Production of ibuprofen CTC
6 Production of dicofol CTC
7 Production of chlorosulfonated polyolefin (CSM) CTC
8 Production of aramid polymer (PPTA) CTC
9 Production of synthetic fibre sheet CFC-11
10 Production of chlorinated paraffin CTC
14 Production of cyclodime CTC
16 Production of chlorinated EVA CTC
18 Production of 3-phenoxybenzaldehyde CTC
19 Production of 2-chloro-5-methylpyridine CTC
20 Production of imidacloprid CTC
21 Production of buprofenzin CTC
108
22 Production of oxadiazon CTC

24 Production of 1,3-dichlorobenzothiazole CTC
25 Bromination of a styrenic polymer BCM
26 Synthesis of 2,4-D (2,4- dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) CTC
27 Synthesis of DEHPC (di-(2-ethylhexyl) peroxydicarbonate) CTC
28 Production of radio-labelled cyanocobalamin CTC
29 Production of high modulus polyethylene fibre CFC-113
30 Production of vinyl chloride monomer CTC
31 Production of sultamicillin BCM
32 Production of prallethrin (pesticide) CTC
33 Production of o-nitrobenzaldehyde (for dyes) CTC
MP DECISIONS
34 Production of 3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde CTC
ARTICLE 1
35 Production of 2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde CTC
36 Production of 2-thiophene ethanol CTC
37 Production of 3,5-dinitrobenzoyl chloride (3,5-DNBC) CTC
38 Production of 1,2-benzisothiazol-3-ketone CTC
39 Production of m-nitrobenzaldehyde CTC
40 Production of tichlopidine CTC
41 Production of p-nitro benzyl alcohol CTC
42 Production of tolclofos methyl CTC
Decision XXI/3: Uses of controlled substances as process agents
Noting with appreciation the 2008 report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;
Recalling Decision X/14 in which all Parties are asked to report to the Secretariat annually by 30 September on
their use of controlled substances as process agents, the levels of emissions from those uses and the containment
technologies used by them to minimize emissions of controlled substances;
Noting that the report by Executive Committee on process agent uses in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol (UNEP/Oz.L.Pro.WG.1/29/4) found that the adoption of technology that
results in zero emissions of ozone-depleting substances used as process agents has become the norm in Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol;
Noting that reporting by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 on approved process agent projects
under the Multilateral Fund does not replace the need to submit the required information under Decision X/14 to
the Ozone Secretariat;
Noting with concern that only two Parties reported information consistent with Decision X/14 and that such
limited data has impeded the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in undertaking the level of analysis
required;
Also noting that such limited information reported by Parties puts at risk the current exclusion of process agent
uses of controlled substances from a Party’s annual consumption calculation;
1. To request all Parties with process agent uses of controlled substances to submit the information required
by Decision X/14 by 30 September each year to the Ozone Secretariat;
2. To clarify that the annual reporting obligation shall not apply once a Party informs the Ozone Secretariat
they do not use ozone-depleting substances as process agents as under Decision X/14, until they start
doing so, and that this one-time procedure pertains to all Parties whether or not they are listed in Table B
of Decision X/14;
3. To request the Ozone Secretariat every year to write to those Parties that did not submit a document as
under paragraph 2, report, requesting them to submit information consistent with Decision X/14;
109
4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to bring cases of non-reporting to the attention of the Implementation
Committee for consideration;
5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Executive Committee of the
Multilateral Fund to prepare a joint report for future meetings, reporting on progress with phasing out
process-agent applications, as sought by Decision XVII/6 (paragraph 6);
6. To revisit this issue at the 30th Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;
7. To update Table A of Decision X/14 as per the Annex to this decision;

MP DECISIONS
8. To update Table B of Decision X/14 as per the Annex to this decision.

ARTICLE 1

1 Elimination of NCl3 in chlor-alkali production CTC
5 Production of ibuprofen CTC
15 Production of chlorinated ethylene vinyl acetate (CEVA) CTC
26 Synthesis of di-(2-ethylhexyl) peroxydicarbonate (DEHPC) CTC
27 Production of radio-labelled cyanocobalamin CTC
42 Production of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) CTC
43 Production of tetrafluorobenzoylethyl acetate CTC
44 Production of 4-bromophenol CTC
110
Table B: Limits for process agent uses (all figures are in metric tonnes per year)
Party Make-up or consumption Maximum emissions

European Community 1083 17
United States of America 2300 181
Canada 0 0
Japan 0 0
Australia 0 0
New Zealand 0 0
Norway 0 0
Iceland 0 0
MP DECISIONS
Switzerland 5 0.4
ARTICLE 1
TOTAL 4188 215,4
Decision XXII/8: Uses of controlled substances as process agents
Noting with appreciation the 2009 and 2010 progress reports of the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel on process agents,
Noting that table A in decision X/14 on process-agent uses has been updated by decisions XV/6, XVII/7 and
XIX/15,
Noting also that the Panel’s 2010 progress report indicates that several parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol included in table B of decision X/14 have reported that they no longer use any
controlled substances as process agents, and that three process-agent uses have been discontinued in the
European Union,
Recalling that the Panel’s 2009 progress report on process agents indicated that Israel had reported the use of
controlled substances for a process-agent application included in table A of decision X/14,
Recalling also that, according to decision X/14, quantities of controlled substances produced or imported by
parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 for use as process agents in plants and installations in operation
before 1 January 1999 should not be taken into account in the calculation of production and consumption from 1
January 2002 onwards, provided that emissions of those substances have been reduced to levels agreed by the
Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol to be reasonably
achievable in a cost-effective manner without undue abandonment of infrastructure,
Recognizing that, in the light of the phase-out dates of 1 January 2010 applicable to chlorofluorocarbons and
carbon tetrachloride under the Montreal Protocol, the Executive Committee is unlikely to agree on any further
emission levels for the use of such substances as process agents in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article
5 beyond 2010,
Recognizing also the substantial progress undertaken by parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in
reducing the use and emissions of controlled substances used as process agents,
Aware that the use and emissions of controlled substances used as process agents will continue beyond 2010 in
only two parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Agreeing that both parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and those not so operating that report process
agent uses should now be listed in table B of decision X/14 and that those of the latter parties not using
controlled substances as process agents should be removed from that table,
Noting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Executive Committee of the Multilateral
Fund will provide a joint report to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-first meeting, in 2011, on further
efforts to reduce uses of process agents,
111
1. That quantities of controlled substances produced or imported by parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 for use as process agents in plants and installations in operation before 1 January 1999 should
not be taken into account in the calculation of production and consumption from 1 January 2011 onwards,
provided that emissions of those substances are within the levels defined in the updated table B of
decision X/14 included in the annex to the present decision;
2. To update tables A and B of decision X/14 as set out in the annex to the present decision;
3. To request each party to report to the Ozone Secretariat, by 15 March 2011, if possible, or 1 July 2011 at
the latest, the specific applications for which it uses controlled substances as process agents and to
continue to report such information in the context of the annual reports required by decision X/14;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 1
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to include, in its 2011 progress report, a
table listing process agent uses by individual parties;
5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, beyond the reporting and assessment in
respect of process agent uses requested for 2011, to review in 2013, and every second year thereafter,
progress made in reducing process agent uses and to make any additional recommendations to parties on
further actions to reduce uses and emissions of process agents;
6. That, once all process agent projects approved by the Executive Committee are completed, reporting by
the Executive Committee to the parties as requested in decision XVII/6 will no longer be required.

1 Elimination of NCl3 in chlor-alkali production Carbon tetrachloride (CTC)
13 Production of chlorinated ethylene vinyl acetate (CEVA) CTC
24 Synthesis of di-(2-ethylhexyl) peroxydicarbonate (DEHPC) CTC
112

39 Production of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) CTC
40 Production of tetrafluorobenzoylethyl acetate CTC
41 Production of 4-bromophenol CTC
Table B: Limits for process-agent uses (all figures are in metric tonnes per year)

European Union 1 083 17
MP DECISIONS
United States of America 2 300 181
ARTICLE 1
Switzerland 5 0.4
Israel 3.5 0
Brazil 2.2* 2.2*
China 1 103 1 103
Total 912.5 319.4
* In accordance with decision 54/36 of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund, the annual make-
up or consumption and maximum emissions for Brazil will be 2.2 metric tonnes up to and including 2013
and zero thereafter.
Decision XXIII/7: Use of controlled substances as process agents
Taking note with appreciation of the 2011 progress report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as
it pertains to process agents,
Recalling that tables A and B of decision X/14 on process agent uses have been updated by decisions XV/6,
XVII/7, XIX/15, XXI/3 and XXII/8,
Noting that the Panel’s 2011 progress report takes into account the information provided by parties and the
Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in accordance
with decision XXI/3,
Noting also that in the 2011 progress report the Panel proposes the removal of 27 processes from table A and
indicates that only four parties reported process agent uses in 2009,
Noting with appreciation that most parties reported significantly lower emissions than those listed in table B,
Acknowledging the role that emissions from process agent uses might play in contributing to the abundance of
carbon tetrachloride in the atmosphere and the need to reduce such emissions,
Recalling that according to decision IV/12 emissions of insignificant quantities of controlled substances,
including from their use as process agents, are not considered to be controlled substances as defined in Article 1
of the Montreal Protocol,
Recalling also that decision IV/12 urges parties to take steps to minimize emissions of ozone-depleting
substances used as process agents, including such steps as avoidance of the creation of such emissions and
reduction of emissions using practicable control technologies, process changes, containment or destruction,
Recalling further decision XIX/15, in which the parties agreed to classify the use of carbon tetrachloride for the
production of vinyl chloride monomer as a process agent use,
1. To update tables A and table B of decision X/14 as set out in the annex to the present decision;
113
2. To urge those parties that have yet to submit information on process agent uses as requested in decisions
X/14 and XXI/3 to do so as a matter of urgency, and no later than 31 March 2012;
3. To remind parties that have provided information in accordance with decision XXI/3 indicating that they
have process agent uses to provide further information, in particular on controlled substances and process
agent applications in accordance with decision X/14, using the format available from the Ozone
Secretariat;
4. To urge the parties listed in table B to revisit their maximum values and to report to the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel on how those values might be reduced, particularly in view of the process
agent uses that have ceased;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 1
5. To request the Panel, as further uses cease in the future, to consider corresponding reductions in make-up
or consumption and maximum emissions accordingly in future proposals concerning table B;
6. To request the Panel to provide for the thirty-second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group a
summary report updating its findings on process agent uses, taking into account relevant information
from previous investigations and including:
(a) A descriptive overview of the processes using ozone-depleting substances as process agents;
(b) Information about alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in process-agent uses;
(c) Information on quantities used for process agent uses as reported in accordance with article 7 of the
Montreal Protocol;
(d) Information on estimated emissions of ozone-depleting substances from process-agent uses and their
impact on the ozone layer and the climate;
(e) Practicable measures to avoid and reduce emissions from process-agent uses;
7. To revisit the use of controlled substances as process agents at the thirty-second meeting of the Open-
ended Working Group;
8. To consider the use of carbon tetrachloride for the production of vinyl chloride monomer for the purpose
of calculated levels of production and consumption, on an exceptional basis, to be a feedstock use until 31
December 2012;
9. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review the use of carbon tetrachloride for
the production of vinyl chloride monomer process in India and other parties, if applicable, and to report
on the results of that review in its 2012 progress report.
No. Process agent application Substance Permitted parties

1 Elimination of NCl3 in chlor-alkali production CTC European Union, Israel, United States
of America
2 Chlorine recovery by tail gas absorption in chlor-alkali CTC European Union, United States of
production America
3 Production of chlorinated rubber CTC European Union
4 Production of chlorosulfonated polyolefin (CSM) CTC China, United States of America
5 Production of aramid polymer (PPTA) CTC European Union
6 Production of synthetic fibre sheet CFC-11 United States of America
7 Photochemical synthesis of CFC-12 European Union
perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide precursors of
8 Preparation of perfluoropolyether diols with high CFC-113 European Union
functionality
9 Production of cyclodime CTC European Union
10 Production of chlorinated polypropene CTC China
114
11 Production of chlorinated ethylene vinyl acetate CTC China

(CEVA)
12 Production of methyl isocyanate derivatives CTC China
13 Bromination of a styrenic polymer BCM United States of America
14 Production of high modulus polyethylene fibre CFC-113 United States of America
Table B: Limits for process agent uses (all figures are in metric tonnes per year)

China 1 103 313
European Union 1 083 17
Israel 3.5 0
MP DECISIONS
United States of America 2 300 181
ARTICLE 1
Total 4 489.5 511
Decisions on used controlled substances
Decision I/12H: Clarification of terms and definitions: Exports and imports of used controlled
substances
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/12H with regard to exports and imports of used controlled
substances: imports and exports of bulk used controlled substances should be treated and recorded in the same
manner as virgin controlled substances and included in the calculation of a Party’s consumption limits.
Decision IV/24: Recovery, reclamation and recycling of controlled substances
1. to annul decision I/12 H of the First Meeting of the Parties, which reads “Imports and exports of bulk
used controlled substances should be treated and recorded in the same manner as virgin controlled
substances and included in the calculation of the Party’s consumption limits”;
2. not to take into account, for calculating consumption, the import and export of recycled and used
controlled substances (except when calculating the base year consumption under paragraph 1 of Article 5
of the Protocol), provided that data on such imports and exports are subject to reporting under Article 7;
3. to agree to the following clarifications of the terms “recovery”, “recycling” and “reclamation”:
(a) Recovery: The collection and storage of controlled substances from machinery, equipment,
containment vessels, etc., during servicing or prior to disposal;
(b) Recycling: The re-use of a recovered controlled substance following a basic cleaning process such
as filtering and drying. For refrigerants, recycling normally involves recharge back into equipment it
often occurs “on-site”;
(c) Reclamation: The re-processing and upgrading of a recovered controlled substance through such
mechanisms as filtering, drying, distillation and chemical treatment in order to restore the substance
to a specified standard of performance. It often involves processing “off-site” at a central facility;
4. to urge all the Parties to take all practicable measures to prevent releases of controlled substances into the
atmosphere, including, inter alia:
(a) to recover controlled substances in Annex A, Annex B and Annex C of the Protocol, for purposes of
recycling, reclamation or destruction, that are contained in the following equipment during servicing
and maintenance as well as prior to equipment dismantling or disposal:
(i) stationary commercial and industrial refrigeration and air conditioning equipment;
(ii) mobile refrigeration and mobile air-conditioning equipment;
115
(iii) fire protection systems;
(iv) cleaning machinery containing solvents;
(b) to minimize refrigerant leakage from commercial and industrial air-conditioning and refrigeration
systems during manufacture, installation, operation and servicing;
(c) to destroy unneeded ozone-depleting substances where economically feasible and environmentally
appropriate to do so;
5. to urge the Parties to adopt appropriate policies for export of the recycled and used substances to Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, so as to avoid any adverse impact on the
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 1
industries of the importing Parties, either through an excessive supply at low prices which might
introduce unnecessary new uses or harm the local industries, or through an inadequate supply which
might harm the user industries;
6. to request the Scientific Assessment Panel to study and report, by 31 March 1994 at the latest, through the
Secretariat, on the impact on the ozone layer of continued use of recycled controlled substances and of the
utilization or non-utilization of available environmentally sound alternatives/substitutes and to request the
Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to consider the report and to submit their recommendations to
the Sixth Meeting of the Parties;
7. to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review and report, by 31 March 1994 at
the latest, through the Secretariat, on:
(a) the technologies for recovery, reclamation, recycling and leakage control;
(b) the quantities available for economically feasible recycling and the demand for recycled substances
by all Parties;
(c) the scope for meeting the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article
5 of the Protocol through recycled substances;
(d) the modalities to promote the widest possible use of alternatives/substitutes with a view to
increasing their usage and release their reclaimed substances to Parties operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 of the Protocol; and
(e) other relevant issues and to recommend policies with respect to recovery, reclamation and recycling,
keeping in mind the effective implementation of the Montreal Protocol;
8. to request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Protocol to consider the reports of the
Scientific Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and any
recommendations in this regard made by the Executive Committee and submit their recommendations to
the Sixth Meeting of the Parties, in 1994.
Decision V/24: Trade in controlled substances and the Basel Convention on Transboundary
Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/24 to note the report of the Secretariat on the applicability of
the provisions of the Basel Convention to trade in used controlled substances of the Montreal Protocol and to
urge the Parties to the Basel Convention to take appropriate decisions, consistent with the objectives of the Basel
Convention and of the Montreal Protocol, in order to facilitate early phase-out of the production and
consumption of the controlled substances of the Montreal Protocol.
Decision VI/19: Trade in previously used ozone-depleting substances
The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/19:
1. To reaffirm the Parties’ intent embodied in decision IV/24;
116
2. To restate that only used controlled substances may be excluded from the calculated level of consumption
of countries importing or exporting such substances;
3. To note further that, as required by decision IV/24, such exclusions from a Party’s calculated level of
consumption is made contingent on reporting of such imports and exports to the Secretariat and Parties
should make their best efforts to report this information in a timely manner;
4. To request all Parties with reclamation facilities to submit to the Secretariat prior to the Seventh Meeting
of the Parties and on an annual basis thereafter a list of the reclamation facilities and their capacities
available in their countries;
MP DECISIONS
5. To request all Parties that export previously used substances to take, where appropriate, steps to ensure
ARTICLE 1
that such substances are labelled correctly and are of the nature claimed and to report any related
activities through the Secretariat to the seventh meeting of the Parties;
6. To request such exporting Parties to make best efforts to require their companies to include in
documentation accompanying such exports, the name of the source firm of the used controlled substance
and whether it was recovered, recycled or reclaimed and any further information available to allow for
verification of the nature of the substance;
7. To request the Ozone Secretariat, drawing on the experience of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel and the Parties, to study and report on trade in used/recycled/reclaimed ozone-
depleting substances, taking particular account of Parties’ experience in the control of such trade and the
concerns and interests of all Parties that have facilities for the production of ozone-depleting substances,
in time for the issues to be considered by the Open-ended Working Group at its twelfth meeting.
Decision VII/31: Status of recycled CFCs and halons under the Basel Convention on the
Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/31 that the international transfers of controlled
substances of the Montreal Protocol which are recovered but not purified to usable purity specifications
prescribed by appropriate international and/or national organizations, including International Standards
Organization (ISO), should only occur if the recipient country has recycling facilities that can process the
received controlled substances to these specifications or has destruction facilities incorporating technologies
approved for that purpose.
Decision XIV/3: Clarification of certain terminology related to controlled substances
1. To note that the terms in past Decisions related to “used controlled substances” such as “recovered”,
“recycled” and “reclaimed” have not been used uniformly and may be misinterpreted;
2. To urge Parties to be precise from now in the terminology related to “used controlled substances” in
future Decisions, and when appropriate, refer specifically to the definitions agreed in Decision IV/24.
Decisions on other issues
Decision I/12D: Clarification of terms and definitions: Industrial rationalization
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/12D to agree to the following clarification of the definition of
“industrial rationalization” in Article 1, paragraph 8 and Article 2, paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Protocol: “in
interpreting the definition of industrial rationalization, it is not possible for one country to increase its production
without a corresponding reduction of production in another country”.
117
Article 2: Control measures
Decisions on adjustments of the control measures
Decision II/1: Adjustments and reductions
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/1 to adopt in accordance with the procedure laid down in
paragraphs 4 and 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol the adjustments and reductions of production and
consumption of the controlled substances listed in Annex A to the Protocol, as set out in Annex I to the report on
the work of the Second Meeting of the Parties.
MP DECISIONS
Decision III/1: Adjustments and amendment

ARTICLE 2
(a) To bring to the attention of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol the fact that the Adjustments to the
Protocol adopted at the Second Meeting of the Parties came into effect on 7 March 1991 and to urge them
to adopt the necessary measures to comply with the adjusted control measures;
(b) To note that only two States have so far ratified the Amendment, adopted at the Second Meeting of the
Parties to the Protocol and to urge all States to ratify that Amendment in view of the fact that twenty
instruments of ratification, approval or acceptance are required for it to come into force on 1 January
1992.
Decision IV/2: Further adjustments and reductions
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/2 to adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in
paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol, the adjustments and reductions of production and
consumption of the controlled substances listed in Annex A to the Protocol, as set out in Annex I to the report of
the Fourth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision IV/3: Further adjustments and reductions
paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol, the adjustments and reductions of production and
consumption of the controlled substances listed in Annex B to the Protocol, as set out in Annex II to the report of
the Fourth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision VII/1: Further adjustments and reductions: controlled substances listed in Annex A to
the Protocol
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/1 to adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down
in paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol, the adjustments and reductions of production and
consumption of the controlled substances listed in Annex A to the Protocol, as set out in Annex I to the report of
the Seventh Meeting of the Parties.
Decision VII/2: Further adjustments and reductions: controlled substances listed in Annex B to
the Protocol
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/2 to adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down
in paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol, the adjustments and reductions of production and
consumption of the controlled substances listed in Annex B to the Protocol, as set out in Annex II to the report of
the Seventh Meeting of the Parties.
118
Decision VII/3: Further adjustments and reductions: controlled substances listed in Annexes C
and E to the Protocol
1. To adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal
Protocol, the adjustments and reductions of production and consumption of the controlled substances
listed in Annexes C and E to the Protocol, as set out in Annex III to the report of the Seventh Meeting of
the Parties;
2. To adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal
MP DECISIONS
Protocol, the adjustment to the ozone-depleting potential specified in Annex E as set out in Annex III to
ARTICLE 2
the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties and that this adjustment shall enter into force on 1
January 1997;
3. That the Meeting of the Parties by 2000 will consider the need for further adjustments to the phase-out
schedule for hydrochlorofluorocarbons for Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5.
Decision IX/1: Further adjustments with regard to Annex A substances
The Ninth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IX/1 to adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in
paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol and on the basis of the assessments made pursuant to Article 6
of the Protocol, the adjustments with regard to production of the controlled substances listed in Annex A to the
Protocol, as set out in annex I to the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision IX/2: Further adjustments with regard to Annex B substances
of the Protocol, the adjustments with regard to production of the controlled substances listed in Annex B to the
Protocol, as set out in annex II to the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision IX/3: Further adjustments and reductions with regard to the Annex E substance
of the Protocol, the adjustments and reductions of production and consumption of the controlled substance listed
in Annex E to the Protocol, as set out in annex III to the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XI/2: Further adjustments with regard to Annex A substances
The Eleventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XI/2 to adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down
in paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol and on the basis of the assessments made pursuant to Article
6 of the Protocol, the adjustments regarding the controlled substances in Annex A to the Protocol, as set out in
annex II to the report of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XI/3: Further adjustments with regard to Annex B substances
6 of the Protocol, the adjustments regarding the controlled substances in Annex B to the Protocol, as set out in
annex III to the report of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XI/4: Further adjustments with regard to Annex E substance
6 of the Protocol, the adjustments regarding the controlled substance in Annex E to the Protocol, as set out in
annex IV to the report of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties.
119
Decision Ex.I/1: Further adjustments relating to the controlled substance in Annex E
The First Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. Ex.I/1:
Recalling that, according to subparagraph 1 (e) of decision IX/5, the Meeting of the Parties should have decided
in 2003 on further specific interim reductions on methyl bromide for the period beyond 2005 applicable to
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Taking into account that current circumstances prevent several Article 5 Parties from adopting a decision in that
regard,
MP DECISIONS
Noting that, by 1 February 2006, non-Article 5 Parties will submit national management strategies which will
ARTICLE 2
send a clear signal on the phase-out of critical uses of methyl bromide;
Considering that at the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties the Parties will decide on the level of replenishment
of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol for the triennium 2006–2008, which
should take into account the requirement to provide new and additional adequate financial and technical
assistance to enable Article 5 Parties to comply with further interim reductions on methyl bromide,
1. To keep under review the interim reduction schedule as elaborated during the Fifteenth Meeting of the
Parties;
2. To consider, preferably by 2006, further specific interim reductions in methyl bromide applicable to
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5.
Decision XIX/6: Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol with regard to Annex C, Group I,
substances (hydrochlorofluorocarbons)
The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIX/6 to accelerate the phase-out of production and
consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), by way of an adjustment in accordance with paragraph 9 of
Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol and as contained in annex III to the report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the
Parties, on the basis of the following:
1. For Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol (Article 5 Parties), to choose as the
baseline the average of the 2009 and 2010 levels of, respectively, consumption and production; and
2. To freeze, at that baseline level, consumption and production in 2013;
3. For Parties operating under Article 2 of the Protocol (Article 2 Parties) to have completed the accelerated
phase-out of production and consumption in 2020, on the basis of the following reduction steps:
(a) By 2010 of 75 per cent;
(b) By 2015 of 90 per cent;
(c) While allowing 0.5 per cent for servicing the period 2020–2030;
4. For Article 5 Parties to have completed the accelerated phase-out of production and consumption in 2030,
on the basis of the following reduction steps:
(a) By 2015 of 10 per cent;
(b) By 2020 of 35 per cent;
(c) By 2025 of 67.5 per cent;
(d) While allowing for servicing an annual average of 2.5per cent during the period 2030–2040;
120
5. To agree that the funding available through the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal
Protocol in the upcoming replenishments shall be stable and sufficient to meet all agreed incremental
costs to enable Article 5 Parties to comply with the accelerated phase-out schedule both for production
and consumption sectors as set out above, and based on that understanding, to also direct the Executive
Committee of the Multilateral Fund to make the necessary changes to the eligibility criteria related to the
post-1995 facilities and second conversions;
6. To direct the Executive Committee, in providing technical and financial assistance, to pay particular
attention to Article 5 Parties with low volume and very low volume consumption of HCFCs;
7. To direct the Executive Committee to assist Parties in preparing their phase-out management plans for an
MP DECISIONS
accelerated HCFC phase-out;
ARTICLE 2
8. To direct the Executive Committee, as a matter of priority, to assist Article 5 Parties in conducting
surveys to improve reliability in establishing their baseline data on HCFCs;
9. To encourage Parties to promote the selection of alternatives to HCFCs that minimize environmental
impacts, in particular impacts on climate, as well as meeting other health, safety and economic
considerations;
10. To request Parties to report regularly on their implementation of paragraph 7 of Article 2F of the
Protocol;
11. To agree that the Executive Committee, when developing and applying funding criteria for projects and
programmes, and taking into account paragraph 6, give priority to cost-effective projects and programmes
which focus on, inter alia:
(a) Phasing-out first those HCFCs with higher ozone-depleting potential, taking into account national
circumstances;
(b) Substitutes and alternatives that minimize other impacts on the environment, including on the
climate, taking into account global-warming potential, energy use and other relevant factors;
(c) Small and medium-size enterprises;
12. To agree to address the possibilities or need for essential use exemptions, no later than 2015 where this
relates to Article 2 Parties, and no later than 2020 where this relates to Article 5 Parties;
13. To agree to review in 2015 the need for the 0.5 per cent for servicing provided for in paragraph 3, and to
review in 2025 the need for the annual average of 2.5 per cent for servicing provided for in paragraph 4
(d);
14. In order to satisfy basic domestic needs, to agree to allow for up to 10% of baseline levels until 2020, and,
for the period after that, to consider no later than 2015 further reductions of production for basic domestic
needs;
15. In accelerating the HCFC phase-out, to agree that Parties are to take every practicable step consistent with
Multilateral Fund programmes, to ensure that the best available and environmentally-safe substitutes and
related technologies are transferred from Article 2 Parties to Article 5 Parties under fair and most
favourable conditions.
121
Decisions on essential uses
Decision IV/25: Essential uses
1. to apply the following criteria and procedure in assessing an essential use for the purposes of control
measures in Article 2 of the Protocol:
(a) that a use of a controlled substance should qualify as “essential” only if:
MP DECISIONS
(i) it is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the functioning of society (encompassing
ARTICLE 2
cultural and intellectual aspects); and
(ii) there are no available technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are
acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health;
(b) that production and consumption, if any, of a controlled substance for essential uses should be
permitted only if:
(i) all economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the essential use and any
associated emission of the controlled substance; and
(ii) the controlled substance is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks
of banked or recycled controlled substances, also bearing in mind the developing countries’
need for controlled substances;
(c) that production, if any, for essential use, will be in addition to production to supply the basic
domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol prior to the
phase-out of the controlled substances in those countries;
2. to request each of the Parties to nominate, in accordance with the criteria approved in paragraph 1 (a) of
the present decision, any use it considers “essential”, to the Secretariat at least six months for halons and
nine months for other substances prior to each Meeting of the Parties that is to decide on this issue;
3. to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Technical and Economic Options
Committee to develop, in accordance with the criteria in paragraphs 1 (a) and 1 (b) of the present
decision, recommendations on the nominations, after consultations with experts as necessary, regarding:
(a) the essential use (substance, quantity, quality, expected duration of essential use, duration of
production or import necessary to meet such essential use);
(b) economically feasible use and emission controls for the proposed essential use;
(c) sources of already produced controlled substances for the proposed essential use (quantity, quality,
timing); and
(d) steps necessary to ensure that alternatives and substitutes are available as soon as possible for the
proposed essential use;
4. to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, while making its recommendations to take
into account the environmental acceptability, health effects, economic feasibility, availability, and
regulatory status of alternatives and substitutes;
5. to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to submit its report, through the Secretariat,
at least three months before the Meeting of the Parties in which a decision is to be taken. The subsequent
reports will also consider which previously qualified essential uses should no longer qualify as essential;
122
6. to request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to consider the report of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel and make its recommendations to the Fifth Meeting of the Parties for halons
and at the Sixth Meeting for all other substances for which an essential use is proposed;
7. that essential use controls will not be applicable to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Protocol until the phase-out dates applicable to those Parties.
Decision V/14: Essential uses of halons
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Halons Technical Options Committee pursuant to decision IV/25 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties;
2. That no level of production or consumption is necessary to satisfy essential uses of halon in Parties not
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, for the year 1994 since there are technically and
economically feasible alternatives and substitutes for most applications, and since halon is available in
sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked and recycled halon;
Decision V/18: Timetable for the submission and consideration of essential-use nominations
1. To request the Parties to submit their nominations for each production and consumption exemption for
substances other than halon for 1996 in accordance with decision IV/25, with the presumption that the
Meeting of the Parties will be held on 1 September;
2. To modify the timetables in decision IV/25 for nominations for halon production and consumption
exemptions for 1995 and subsequent years, and for nominations for production and consumption
exemptions for substances other than halon for 1997 and subsequent years as follows: to set 1 January of
each year as the last date for nominations for decisions taken in that year for any subsequent year;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its relevant Technical Options
Committees to develop recommendations on the nominations and submit their report through the
Secretariat by 31 March of that year;
4. To request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to consider the report of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel and make its recommendations to the subsequent meeting of the Parties;
5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assemble and distribute a handbook on
essential uses nominations including copies of relevant decisions, nomination instructions, summaries of
past recommendations, and copies of nominations to illustrate possible formats and levels of technical
detail.
Decision VI/8: Essential-use nominations for halons for 1995
The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/8, that, for the year 1995 no level of production or
consumption is necessary to satisfy essential uses of halons in Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article
5 of the Protocol, since there are technically and economically feasible alternatives and substitutes for most
applications, and since halons are available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked and
recycled halons.
123
Decision VI/9: Essential-use nominations for controlled substances other than halons for 1996
and beyond
Technical Options Committees pursuant to decision IV/25 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties;
2. That, for 1996 and 1997 for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, levels of
production or consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of chlorofluorocarbons and 1,1,1–
trichloroethane for: (i) metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive
MP DECISIONS
pulmonary disease (COPD), and for the delivery of leuprolide to the lungs and (ii) the Space Shuttle, are
ARTICLE 2
authorized as specified in Annex I to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties, subject to annual
review of quantities; [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook]
3. That for 1996 and 1997, for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
production or consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of ozone-depleting substances for
laboratory and analytical uses are authorized as specified in Annex II to the report of the Sixth Meeting of
the Parties; [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook]
4. That Parties shall endeavour to minimize use and emissions by all practical steps. In the case of metered
dose inhalers, these steps include education of physicians and patients about other treatment options and
good-faith efforts to eliminate or recapture emissions from filling and testing, consistent with national
laws and regulations.
Decision VII/28: Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 1996 and beyond
Technical Options Committees pursuant to decision IV/25 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties;
2. That, for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
of the Protocol, levels of production and consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of CFC–11,
CFC–12, CFC–113, CFC–114 and methyl chloroform are authorized as specified in Annex VI to the
report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook], for metered-dose inhalers
(MDIs) for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nasal dexamethasone, and specific
cleaning, bonding and surface activation applications in rocket motor manufacturing for the United States
Space Shuttle and Titan, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel will review, annually, the quantity of controlled
substances authorized and submit a report to the Meeting of the Parties in that year;
(b) The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel will review, biennially, whether the applications
for which exemption was granted still meets the essential-use criteria and submit a report, through
the Secretariat, to the Meeting of the Parties in the year in which the review is made;
(c) The Parties granted essential use exemptions will reallocate, as decided by the Parties, to other uses
the exemptions granted or destroy any surplus ozone-depleting substances authorized for essential
use but subsequently rendered unnecessary as a result of technical progress and market adjustments;
3. To urge the Parties to collate, coordinate and evaluate the individual company nominations for future
years before submitting these nominations to the Secretariat.
124
Decision VIII/9: Essential-use nominations for Parties not operating under Article 5 for
controlled substances for 1997 through 2002
Technical Options Committees pursuant to decision IV/25 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties and
decisions VII/28 and VII/34 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties;
2. That the levels of production and consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of CFC-11, CFC-12,
CFC-113 and CFC-114, for metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
MP DECISIONS
diseases and nasal dexamethasone, and halon 2402 for fire protection are authorized as specified in annex
ARTICLE 2
II to the report of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook], subject to the
conditions established by the Seventh Meeting of the Parties in paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28;
3. To correct the errors introduced by the reports of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its
Technical Options Committees in the United States MDI nomination of CFC-12 and CFC-114 for the
production year 1997 and its nomination of methyl chloroform for the production years 1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000 and 2001 and to adjust the total amounts exempted to take into account the withdrawal of the
New Zealand MDI nomination of CFC-11 and CFC-12 for production years 1996 and 1997, as specified
in annex III to the report of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook];
4. That for 1998, for Parties not operating under Article 5 of the Protocol, production and consumption
necessary to satisfy essential uses of controlled substances in Annexes A and B of the Protocol only for
laboratory and analytical uses, as listed in annex IV to the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties,
are authorized, subject to the conditions applied to exemption for laboratory and analytical uses as
contained in annex II to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties;
5. To permit the transfer of essential-use authorizations for MDIs for 1997 between New Zealand and
Australia on a one-time basis only;
Committee to investigate the implications of allowing greater flexibility in the transfer of essential-use
authorizations between Parties;
Committee to review and report, by 30 April 1997, on the implications of allowing the production of
CFCs for medical applications on a periodic “campaign basis” to satisfy estimated future needs, rather
than producing small quantities in each year. Consideration should be given in particular to the economic
implications of such an allowance;
8. To revise the timetables in decision IV/25, as modified by decision V/18, for nominations for production
and consumption exemptions for 1998 and subsequent years, as follows: to set 31 January of each year as
the last date for nominations for decisions to be taken in that year for production or consumption in any
subsequent year; and to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its relevant
Technical Options Committees to develop recommendations on the nominations and submit their report
through the Secretariat by 30 April of that year; however, for 1997 the report will be submitted by 1 April
1997;
9. To approve the format for reporting quantities and uses of ozone-depleting substances produced and
consumed for essential uses as set out in annex IV to the report of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties [see
Section 3.2 of this Handbook] and beginning in 1998 to request each of the Parties that have had
essential-use exemptions granted for previous years, to submit their report in the approved format by 31
January of each year;
10. To allow the Secretariat, in consultation with the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, to
authorize, in an emergency situation, if possible by transfer of essential-use exemptions, consumption of
quantities not exceeding 20 tonnes of ODS for essential uses on application by a Party prior to the next
125
scheduled Meeting of the Parties. The Secretariat should present this information to the next Meeting of
the Parties for review and appropriate action by the Parties.
Note: text indicated in strikethrough and underline has been deleted or added in accordance with the provisions
of Decision XX/3 (see page 133).
Decision IX/18: Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled substances
for 1998 and 1999
The Ninth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IX/18:
1. To note with appreciation the excellent work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
and its Technical Options Committees;
CFC-113 and CFC-114, for metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
diseases, and halon 2402 for fire protection are authorized as specified in annex VI to the report of the
Ninth Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook], subject to the conditions established by
the Meeting of the Parties in paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28;
3. To approve the authorization by the Secretariat of the emergency use of 3 tonnes for 1997 for CFC-12 for
sterile aerosol talc submitted as an essential-use nomination by United States of America.
Decision X/6: Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled substances for
1999 and 2000
and its technical options committees;
CFC-113 and CFC-114, for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
diseases, CFC-113 for use in the coating of cardiovascular surgical material and halon-2402 for fire
protection are authorized as specified in annex I to the report of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties [see
Section 3.2 of this Handbook], subject to the conditions established by the Meeting of the Parties in
paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28;
3. To agree that the remaining quantity of methyl chloroform authorized for the United States at previous
meetings of the Parties be made available for use in manufacturing solid rocket motors until such time as
the 1999–2001 quantity of 176.4 tonnes (17.6 ODP-weighted tonnes) allowance is depleted, or until such
time as safe alternatives are implemented for remaining essential uses;
4. To approve the authorization by the Secretariat in consultation with the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel of the emergency uses of 1.7 tonnes of CFC-113 for 1997 and 1998 for torpedo
maintenance submitted as an essential-use nomination by Poland;
5. That the quantities approved under paragraph 2 above and all future approvals are for total CFC volumes
with flexibility between CFCs within each group.
Decision XI/14: Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled substances
for 2000 and 2001
The Eleventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XI/14:
126
CFC-113 and CFC-114 for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases,
CFC-113 for torpedo maintenance, and halon 2402 for fire protection are authorized as specified in annex
VII to the report of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook], subject to the
conditions established by the Meeting of the Parties in paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28;
3. That the quantities approved in paragraph 2 above and all future approvals are for total CFC volumes
with flexibility between CFCs within each group.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Decision XII/9: Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled substances
for 2001 and 2002
2. That the levels of production and consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of CFCs for metered-
dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and CFC-113 for torpedo
maintenance are authorized as specified in annex I to the report of the Twelfth Meeting of the Parties [see
Section 3.2 of this Handbook], subject to the conditions established by the Meeting of the Parties in
paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28.
Decision XIII/8: Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled substances
for the year 2002 and beyond
2. To authorize the levels of production and consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of CFCs for
metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and CFC-113 for
torpedo maintenance as specified in Annex I to the report of the 13th Meeting of the Parties [see Section
3.2 of this Handbook].
Decision XIV/4: Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled substances
for 2003 and 2004
metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases as specified in annex I to
the report of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook], subject to the
conditions established by the Meeting of the Parties in paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28.
127
Decision XV/4: Essential use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled substances
for 2004 and 2005
metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases as well as for laboratory
and analytical uses as specified in annex I to the present report [see Section 3.2 in this Handbook],
MP DECISIONS
subject to the conditions established by the Meeting of the Parties in paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28;
ARTICLE 2
3. To note that two Parties, the European Community and Poland, had requested emergency exemptions for
laboratory and analytical uses, which had been approved by the Ozone Secretariat, in consultation with
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in accordance with the procedure set forth in
paragraph 10 of decision VIII/9. The following amounts were approved:
Poland: 2.05 tonnes of CFC-113 and carbon tetrachloride for 2003;
European Community: 0.025 ODP-tonnes of hydrobromofluorocarbons and

bromochloromethane for 2003 and 2004.
Decision XVI/12: Essential-use nominations for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol for controlled substances for 2005 and 2006
Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Technical
Options Committee,
metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases as specified in the annex to
this decision [see Section 3.2 in this Handbook], subject to the conditions established by the Meeting of
the Parties in paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28 and subject to a second review of the 2006 levels
consistent with decision XV/5;
2. To urge the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to specify in the Handbook on Essential Use
Nominations that a nominating Party may submit in its nomination data aggregated by region and product
group for CFC-containing metered-dose inhalers intended for sale in Parties operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 when more specific data are not available;
3. That, in the light of the fact that Aerosol Technical Options Committee’s recommendations for future
essential-use exemptions are based on past stock level information, Parties, when preparing essential use
nominations for CFCs, should give due consideration to existing stocks, whether owned or agreed to be
acquired from a metered-dose inhaler manufacturer, of banked or recycled controlled substances as
described in paragraph 1 (b) of decision IV/25, with the objective of maintaining no more than one year’s
operational supply.
Decision XVII/5: Essential-use nominations for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Medical
Technical Options Committee,
128
Noting with appreciation the progress made since the adoption of decision XV/5 by Parties not operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol in establishing a certain date by which they will cease
submitting nominations for metered-dose inhalers where the sole active ingredient is salbutamol,
Recalling paragraph 6 of decision XV/5 relating to the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose
inhalers where the active ingredient is not solely salbutamol,
1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption for 2006 and 2007 necessary to satisfy essential
uses of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease as specified in the annex to the present decision [see Section 3.2 in this Handbook];
MP DECISIONS
2. That Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, when licensing,
ARTICLE 2
authorizing, or allocating essential-use exemptions for chlorofluorocarbons for a manufacturer, shall take
into account pre- and post-1996phase-out stocks of controlled substances as described in paragraph 1 (b)
of decision IV/25, such that no more than a one-year operational supply is maintained by that
manufacturer;
3. With reference to paragraph 6 of decision XV/5, to request that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol submit a date to the Ozone Secretariat prior to the Eighteenth Meeting
of the Parties by which time a regulation or regulations to determine the non-essentiality of the vast
majority of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers where the active ingredient is not solely
salbutamol will have been proposed;
3 bis With reference to paragraph 6 of decision XV/5, to request that Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol submit a date to the Ozone Secretariat prior to the Twenty-Second
Meeting of the Parties, by which time a regulation or regulations to determine the non-essentiality of the
vast majority of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers where the active ingredient is not solely
salbutamol will have been proposed.
Decision XVIII/7: Essential-use exemptions for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Taking into account the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s expectation that production of metered-
dose inhalers containing chlorofluorocarbons should cease by the end of 2009 and, based on its analysis and
monitoring of the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free treatments of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease over the last decade, the Panel’s assessment that global phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-
dose inhalers will be achievable by 2010,
Considering the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel's conclusion that technically satisfactory
alternatives to chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers are available for short-acting beta-agonists and
other therapeutic categories for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
Mindful that, according to decision IV/25, chlorofluorocarbon use for metered-dose inhalers shall not qualify as
essential if technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes are available that are acceptable from
the standpoint of environment and health,
Welcoming the fact that the United States has demonstrated its commitment in its domestic process to allocate
only the minimal amount necessary to protect public health, having issued a proposed regulation that would
allocate 125.3 tons for 2007,
129
Mindful that paragraph 8 of decision XII/2 allows the transfer of chlorofluorocarbons between metered-dose
inhaler companies,
uses of chlorofluorocarbons for the production of metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease specified in annex III to the present report [see Section 3.2 of this
Handbook];
authorizing, or allocating essential-use exemptions for chlorofluorocarbons for a manufacturer of
metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, shall take into account pre-
MP DECISIONS
and post-1996phase-out stocks of controlled substances as described in paragraph 1 (b) of decision IV/25,
ARTICLE 2
such that no more than a one-year operational supply is maintained by the manufacturer;
3. That Parties not operating under Article 5 will request companies applying for metered-dose inhaler
essential use exemptions to demonstrate that they are making efforts, with all due diligence, on research
and development with respect to chlorofluorocarbon-free alternatives to their products and are diligently
seeking approval of their chlorofluorocarbon-free alternatives in their domestic and export markets aimed
at transitioning those markets away from the chlorofluorocarbon products.
Decision XVIII/8: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace

applications in the Russian Federation for 2007
Recalling that the Russian Federation has submitted a nomination for an essential-use exemption for
chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace applications in the Russian Federation,
Noting that the nomination by the Russian Federation was submitted on 15 April 2006, several weeks after the
deadline required for the essential use exemption process set out in decision IV/25,
Regretting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options
Committee were not provided sufficient time to review that nomination in detail and report to the Parties three
months ahead of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties in accordance with the time schedule prescribed,
Recalling that consultations took place between the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the
Russian Federation during the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and thereafter and that,
following such consultations, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel stated in its May 2006 progress
report that Parties might wish to consider granting the Russian Federation a one-year essential use exemption,
Taking into account the information already made available by the Russian Federation in relation to its
nomination for an essential use exemption for aerospace applications, which contains data on the anticipated
gradual reduction of the Party’s expected needs until 2010,
Recalling that the Russian Federation has indicated that the amount of ozone-depleting substances being used for
aerospace applications has been constantly decreasing owing to research into and transition to alternative ozone-
safe substances and technologies and that the amount of chlorofluorocarbon-113 being used has been reduced
from 241 metric tonnes in 2001 to 160 metric tonnes in 2006,
1. To permit the Russian Federation a level of production and consumption of 150 metric tonnes of
chlorofluorocarbon-113 for its essential use in the aerospace industry of the Russian Federation in 2007;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options
Committee to complete a comprehensive assessment of the information made available in the nomination
submitted by the Russian Federation and, on the basis of any additional information that may be required
130
from the Russian Federation, to conclude its analysis taking into account that the information underlying
such analysis should address comprehensively the reason why existing alternatives to CFC-113 would not
be applied for the use concerned;
3. To call upon the Russian Federation to continue to cooperate closely with the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee further to the present decision and to
submit, in accordance with the requirements of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its
Chemicals Technical Options Committee, the additional detailed technical information mentioned in
paragraph 2 on the use of chlorofluorocarbon-113 that may be required until the completion of the
assessment;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Committee to review all the information provided, as specified in paragraphs 2 and 3, and present the
results of that review to the Open-Ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh meeting, in 2007;
5. To call upon the Russian Federation:
(a) To consider further the use of foreign sources of chlorofluorocarbon-113 stockpiles identified by the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee as a
contribution for addressing the needs mentioned under paragraph 1 or any possible future needs;
(b) To consider further the possibility of, and a timetable for, introducing the use of any new
alternatives to chlorofluorocarbon-113 that become available and to continue its research and
development activities with a view to finding new alternatives;
5. To further call upon the Russian Federation to provide in due time to the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee, for the purpose of any future
nomination of that Party for essential-use exemptions for chlorofluorocarbon-113 in relation to aerospace
applications, comprehensive information in accordance with the conditions set out in decision IV/25;
7. To take into consideration the outcome of the continued consultations mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 4
between the Russian Federation and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals
Technical Options Committee on the amount authorized for essential uses in 2007, in reviewing any
possible additional nomination by the Russian Federation for aerospace applications for 2008.
Decision XIX/13: Essential-use nominations for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIX/13:
Mindful that, according to decision IV/25, the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for metered-dose inhalers does
not qualify as an essential use if technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes are available
that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health,
Noting the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel's conclusion that technically satisfactory alternatives to
chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers are available for short-acting beta-agonists and other
therapeutic categories for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
Mindful that paragraph 8 of decision XII/2 allows the transfer of CFCs between metered-dose inhaler companies,
Welcoming the continued progress in several Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in reducing
their reliance on CFC-containing metered-dose inhalers as alternatives are developed, receive regulatory
approval and are marketed for sale,
131
uses of CFCs for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease specified
in the annexes to the present decision [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook];
authorizing or allocating essential-use exemptions for a manufacturer of metered-dose inhalers, shall
ensure, in accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of decision IV/25, that pre- and post-1996phase-out stocks of
controlled substances are taken into account such that no more than a one-year operational supply is
maintained by the manufacturer;
3. That Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol will request each
MP DECISIONS
company, consistent with paragraph 1 of decision VIII/10, to notify the relevant authority, for each
ARTICLE 2
metered-dose inhaler product for which the production of CFCs is requested, of:
(a) The company’s commitment to the reformulation of the concerned products;
(b) The timetable in which each reformulation process may be completed;
(c) Evidence that the company is diligently seeking approval of any chlorofluorocarbon-free
alternative(s) in its domestic and export markets and transitioning those markets away from its
chlorofluorocarbon products;
4. The Parties listed in Annex A to the present decision [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook] shall not
nominate for the production of essential use volumes of CFCs for the manufacture of metered-dose
inhalers in 2010 or any year thereafter.
Decision XIX/14: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace

Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals
Taking into consideration that adequate identified alternatives for chlorofluorocarbon-113 (CFC-113) do not
currently exist for use in the aerospace industry of the Russian Federation and that the search for its alternatives
continues, as confirmed in the 2006 assessment report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and
its Chemicals Technical Options Committee,
Noting the readiness of the Russian Federation to explore the possibility of importing CFC-113 for its aerospace
industry needs from available global stocks in accordance with the recommendations of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee,
Also noting that the Russian Federation is ready to receive prior to February 2008 a small group of experts in
replacing ozone-depleting substance solvents in the aerospace industry nominated by the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee with the aim of evaluating the
applications and recommending proven alternatives where possible,
1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption of CFC-113 in the Russian Federation for
essential-use exemptions for chlorofluorocarbons in its aerospace industry in the amount of 140 metric
tonnes in 2008;
2. To authorize the volume of 130 metric tonnes of CFC-113 nominated for 2009 by the Russian Federation
provided that no alternatives are identified by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel that can
be implemented by 2009;
132
3. To request the Russian Federation to explore further the possibility of importing CFC-113 for its
aerospace industry needs from available global stocks in accordance with the recommendations of the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee.
Decision XX/2: Essential-use nominations for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Mindful that, according to decision IV/25, the use of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers does not
qualify as an essential use if technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes are available that
are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health,
Noting the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s conclusion that technically satisfactory alternatives to
chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers are available for short-acting beta-agonists and other
therapeutic categories for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
Mindful that paragraph 8 of decision XII/2 allows the transfer of chlorofluorocarbons between metered-dose
inhaler companies,
Welcoming the continued progress in several Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in reducing
their reliance on chlorofluorocarbon based metered-dose inhalers as alternatives are developed, receive
regulatory approval and are marketed for sale,
uses of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease as specified in the annex to the present decision [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook];
authorizing or allocating essential-use exemptions for a manufacturer of metered dose inhalers, shall
ensure, in accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of decision IV/25, that pre-1996 and post-1996 stocks of
controlled substances are taken into account such that no more than a one-year operational supply is
maintained by the manufacturer.
Decision XX/3: Essential-use exemptions for Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
Mindful of the impending 2010 phase-out of certain controlled substances in Parties operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5,
Desiring to implement effectively paragraph 7 of decision IV/25 and make the currently used essential-use
exemption process and related decisions fully applicable to both Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
subject to the phase-out dates applicable to those Parties, and Parties not so operating,
Taking into consideration that some Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 may prepare essential-use
nominations for the first time and may therefore face difficulties in doing so,
1. To make the following modifications to the decisions noted below:
(a) To remove reference to the term “not operating under Article 5” or, “for non-Article 5 Parties” from
the following titles and provisions of the following past decisions of the Parties:
(i) Title of decisions VIII/9, VIII/10, VIII/11, XI/14, XVII/5, XVIII/7, XIX/13;
133
(ii) Decision VIII/10, first line of paragraphs 1–9;
(iii) Decision XV/5, paragraphs 2, 3, 5(a) and 6;
(iv) Decision XVIII/7, paragraphs 2 and 3;
(v) Decision XVIII/16, first line of paragraph 7;
(b) To remove reference to the term “not operating under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol” from the
following titles and provisions of the following past decisions of the Parties:
MP DECISIONS
(i) Decision XVII/5, paragraph 2;

ARTICLE 2
(ii) Decision XIX/13, paragraphs 2 and 3;
(c) To remove and replace reference to the date “1996” with the term “phase-out” in the following
provisions of past decisions of the Parties:
(i) Decision XVII/5, paragraph 2;
(ii) Decision XVIII/7, paragraph 2;
(iii) Decision XIX/13, paragraph 2;
(d) To add a new paragraph after paragraph 3 of decision XVII/5 to read as follows:
3 bis With reference to paragraph 6 of decision XV/5, to request that Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol submit a date to the Ozone Secretariat prior
to the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties, by which time a regulation or regulations to
determine the non-essentiality of the vast majority of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose
inhalers where the active ingredient is not solely salbutamol will have been proposed;
(e) To add a new paragraph after paragraph 5 of decision IX/19 to read as follows:
5 bis. To require Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 submitting essential-use

nominations for chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to present to the Ozone Secretariat an initial national or
regional transition strategy by 31 January 2010 for circulation to all Parties. Where possible,
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 are encouraged to develop and submit to the
Secretariat an initial transition strategy by 31 January 2009. In preparing a transition strategy,
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 should take into consideration the availability
and price of treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in countries
currently importing chlorofluorocarbon-containing metered-dose inhalers;
(f) To add a new paragraph after paragraph 2 of decision XII/2 to read as follows:
2 bis. That any chlorofluorocarbon metered-dose inhaler product approved after 31 December 2008,
excluding any product in the process of registration and approved by 31 December 2009, for
treatment of asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a Party operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5, is not an essential use, unless the product meets the criteria set out in
paragraph 1 (a) of decision IV/25;
(g) To add a new paragraph after paragraph 4 of decision XV/5 to read as follows:
4 bis. That no quantity of chlorofluorocarbons for essential uses shall be authorized after the
commencement of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties if the nominating Party operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 has not submitted to the Ozone Secretariat, in time for
consideration by the Parties at the twenty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, a
134
preliminary plan of action regarding the phase-out of the domestic use of

chlorofluorocarbon-containing metered-dose inhalers where the sole active ingredient is
salbutamol;
2. That both the Parties submitting nominations for essential-use exemptions and the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel reviewing nominations for essential-use exemptions shall consider the
decisions noted above in their amended form when considering essential-use nominations in 2009 and
beyond, subject to any further future decisions of the Parties;
3. To request the Secretariat to include the changes above in the relevant decisions of the Parties contained
in the Montreal Protocol handbook at the time of its next revision, and to note in that handbook that the
MP DECISIONS
related decisions include the modifications adopted by the present decision; [These changes have been
ARTICLE 2
indicated in the relevant decisions in strikethrough and underline for deleted and added text.]
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to reflect paragraphs 1–3 above in a revised
version of the handbook on essential-use nominations and to submit, for consideration by Parties,
suggestions for any appropriate changes to the handbook and the timing to make such changes.
Decision XXI/4: Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2010
Noting the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s conclusion that technically satisfactory alternatives to
chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers are available for some of the therapeutic formulations for
treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
Taking into account the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s analysis and recommendations for
essential use exemptions for controlled substances for the manufacture of metered-dose inhalers used for asthma
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
Noting that the Meeting of the Parties is for the first time considering essential use nominations submitted by
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Noting also that the Medical Technical Options Committee stated in its report that it had difficulty assessing
some of the nominations submitted by Parties in accordance with the criteria of decision IV/25 and subsequent
relevant decisions owing to a lack of certain information,
Noting further that notwithstanding insufficient information referred to in the preceding paragraph the Medical
Technical Options Committee gave due consideration to the health and safety of patients in regard to the
amounts recommended,
Welcoming the continued progress in several Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in reducing their
reliance on chlorofluorocarbon based metered-dose inhalers as alternatives are developed, receive regulatory
1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption for 2010 necessary to satisfy essential uses of
chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as
specified in the annex to the present decision [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook];
135
2. To request nominating Parties to supply to the Medical Technical Options Committee information to
enable assessment of essential use nominations in accordance with the criteria set out in decision IV/25
and subsequent relevant decisions as set out in the Handbook on Essential Use Nominations;
3. To encourage Parties with essential use exemptions in 2010 to consider sourcing required
pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons initially from stockpiles where they are available and
accessible;
4. To encourage Parties with stockpiles of pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons potentially available

for export to Parties with essential use exemptions in 2010 to notify the Ozone Secretariat of such
quantities and a contact point by 31 December 2009;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
5. To request the Secretariat to post on its website details of the potentially available stocks referred to in the
preceding paragraph;
6. To request the Executive Committee to consider at its next meeting reviewing both of the
chlorofluorocarbon production phase-out agreements with China and India with a view to allowing
production of pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons to meet the authorized levels of production and
consumption specified in the annex to the present decision and any authorized amounts in the future
years;
7. That the Parties listed in the annex to the present decision shall have full flexibility in sourcing the
quantity of pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons to the extent required for manufacturing of
metered-dose inhalers, as authorized in paragraph 1 above, either from imports or from domestic
producers or from existing stockpiles;
8. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Medical Technical Options
Committee to organize and undertake a mission of experts to examine the technical, economic and
administrative issues affecting the transition from CFC metered dose inhalers to CFC-free alternatives in
the Russian Federation, and to report the results of this mission to the meeting of the thirtieth Open-ended
Working Group. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is requested to examine:
a. The status of transition in the enterprises manufacturing CFC MDIs;
b. Technical, financial, logistical, administrative or other barriers to transition;
c. Possible options to overcome any barriers and facilitate the transition.
Decision XXI/5: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace applications

in the Russian Federation
Taking into consideration that adequate identified alternatives for chlorofluorocarbon-113 (CFC-113) do not
currently exist for use in the aerospace industry of the Russian Federation and that the search for its alternatives
continues, as confirmed in the 2006 assessment report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and
its Chemicals Technical Options Committee and in informal meetings with experts from the Russian Federation,
Noting that the Russian Federation continues to explore the possibility of importing CFC-113 for its aerospace
industry needs from available global stocks in accordance with the recommendations of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee,
Noting that the Russian Federation is successful in reducing use and emissions on the timetable of technical
transformation developed in collaboration with the Chemical Technical Options Committee,
136
1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption of CFC-113 in the Russian Federation for
essential-use exemptions for chlorofluorocarbons in its aerospace industry in the amount of 120 metric
tonnes in 2010;
2. To request the Russian Federation to explore further the possibility of importing CFC-113 for its
aerospace industry needs from available global stocks in accordance with the recommendations of the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee.
3. To encourage the Russian Federation to continue its efforts to explore alternatives and substitutes and to
use best practices to minimize emissions.
MP DECISIONS
Decision XXII/4: Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2011
ARTICLE 2
Noting the Panel’s conclusion that technically satisfactory alternatives to chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose
inhalers are available for some therapeutic formulations for treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease,
Taking into account the Panel’s analysis and recommendations for essential-use exemptions for controlled
substances for the manufacture of metered-dose inhalers used for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease,
Noting that the Medical Technical Options Committee continued to have difficulty assessing some nominations
submitted by parties in accordance with the criteria of decision IV/25 and subsequent relevant decisions owing
to a lack of certain information,
Noting also that, notwithstanding the insufficient information referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Medical
Technical Options Committee gave due consideration to the health and safety of patients with regard to the
amounts recommended,
Welcoming the continued progress in several parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in reducing their
reliance on chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers as alternatives are developed, receive regulatory
Welcoming also the announcements by India and the Islamic Republic of Iran that they will not require
pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons under essential-use nominations for 2011 or beyond for the
manufacture of metered-dose inhalers, and acknowledging their efforts in their phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons
in metered-dose inhalers,
Acknowledging Bangladesh’s efforts in its phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons in metered-dose inhalers, and taking
into account the economic difficulties faced by that party,
Welcoming the announcement by Bangladesh that it will not, in the future, submit essential-use nominations for
the use of chlorofluorocarbons in salbutamol, beclomethasone or levosalbutamol metered-dose inhalers,
chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as
137
2. To request nominating parties to supply to the Medical Technical Options Committee information to
enable assessment of essential-use nominations in accordance with the criteria set out in decision IV/25
and subsequent relevant decisions as set out in the handbook on essential-use nominations;
3. To encourage parties with essential-use exemptions in 2011 to consider sourcing required

accessible;
4. To encourage parties with stockpiles of pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons potentially available

for export to parties with essential-use exemptions in 2011 to notify the Ozone Secretariat of such
quantities and of a contact point by 31 December 2010;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
6. That the parties listed in the annex to the present decision shall have full flexibility in sourcing the
quantity of pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons to the extent required for manufacturing metered-
dose inhalers, as authorized in paragraph 1 above, from imports, from domestic producers or from
existing stockpiles;
7. To approve the authorization given to the Dominican Republic by the Secretariat, in consultation with the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, of the emergency essential use of 1.832 metric tonnes of
CFC-113 as a diluter for silicon grease during the manufacture of medical devices, to cover the period
2010–2011.
Decision XXII/5: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon 113 for aerospace

Noting the evaluation and recommendation of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its
Chemicals Technical Options Committee in respect of the essential-use nomination for chlorofluorocarbon 113
(CFC-113) for aerospace applications in the Russian Federation,
Noting also that the Russian Federation has continued to explore the possibility of importing CFC-113 to meet
its aerospace industry needs from available global stocks,
Noting further that the Russian Federation has been successful in reducing its use and emissions of CFC-113 in
line with a timetable of technical transformation developed in collaboration with the Chemicals Technical
Options Committee,
Noting, however, that the Chemicals Technical Options Committee has recommended greater efforts to
introduce appropriate alternatives,
1. To authorize an essential-use exemption for the production and consumption in 2011 of 100 metric tonnes
of CFC-113 in the Russian Federation for chlorofluorocarbon applications in its aerospace industry;
2. To request the Russian Federation to continue to explore further the possibility of importing CFC-113 for
its aerospace industry needs from available global stocks;
3. To urge the Russian Federation to continue its efforts on the introduction of alternative solvents and the
adoption of newly designed equipment to complete the phase-out of CFC-113 according to an accelerated
time schedule.
138
Decision XXIII/2: Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2012
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
disease,
disease,
Welcoming the announcement by Bangladesh that it will not, in the future, submit essential-use nominations for
the use of chlorofluorocarbons in metered-dose inhalers,
chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
enable assessment of essential-use nominations in accordance with the criteria set out indecision IV/25

accessible, provided that such stockpiles are used subject to the conditions established by the Meeting of
the Parties in paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28;

for export to parties with essential-use exemptions in 2012 to notify the Secretariat of such quantities and
of a contact point by 31 December 2011;
quantity of pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons to the extent required for manufacturing metered-
dose inhalers, as authorized in paragraph 1 above, from imports, from domestic producers or from
existing stockpiles;
7. To request parties to consider domestic regulations to ban the launch or sale of new chlorofluorocarbon-
based metered-dose inhaler products, even if such products have been approved;
8. To encourage parties to fast-track their administration processes for the registration of metered-dose
inhaler products in order to speed up the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free alternatives;
139
9. To approve the authorization granted Mexico by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel, for the emergency essential-use of six metric tonnes of pharmaceutical-
grade CFC-12 for the production of metered-dose inhalers, to cover the period
2011–2012.
Decision XXIII/3: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace

Taking note of the evaluation and recommendation of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its
MP DECISIONS
Chemicals Technical Options Committee in respect of the essential-use nomination for chlorofluorocarbon-113
ARTICLE 2
(CFC-113) for aerospace applications in the Russian Federation,
Noting that the Russian Federation has presented the Chemical Technical Options Committee with the requested
information and explanations regarding the current and future situation in relation to the use of CFC-113 in the
aerospace industry,
Noting that the Committee has reported that the new nomination of the Russian Federation satisfies, in principle,
the criteria to qualify as essential use under the decision IV/25, including the absence of available technically
and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and
health,
Noting that the Committee recommends the acceleration of efforts to introduce appropriate alternatives, to
investigate materials compatible with alternatives, and the adoption of newly designed equipment to complete
the phase-out of CFC-113 within an accelerated time schedule,
2. To request the Russian Federation to continue to explore further the possibility of importing CFC-113 of
the required quality for its aerospace industry needs from available global stocks as recommended by the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;
3. To request the Russian Federation to accelerate its efforts to introduce alternative solvents in order to
gradually reduce consumption of the CFC-113 in the aerospace industry to a maximum of 75 tons in
2015;
4. To request the Russian Federation to provide as part of its next essential-use exemption nomination a
final phase-out plan with an expected end-date, the gradual reduction steps and information on the source
of the CFC-113.
Decision XXIV/3: Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2013
Mindful that, according to decision IV/25, the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for metered-dose inhalers does
not qualify as an essential use if technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes are available
that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health,
Noting the Panel’s conclusion that technically satisfactory alternatives to CFC-based metered-dose inhalers are
available for some therapeutic formulations for treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
140
disease,
reliance on CFC-based metered-dose inhalers as alternatives are developed, receive regulatory approval and are
marketed for sale,
Taking into account the additional information provided to the parties by China during the Twenty-Fourth
Meeting of the Parties concerning the use of CFCs in traditional Chinese medicine in remote areas,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
CFCs for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease specified in the
annex to the present decision;
enable assessment of essential-use nominations in accordance with the criteria set out in decision IV/25

pharmaceutical-grade CFCs initially from stockpiles where they are available and accessible, provided
that such stockpiles are used subject to the conditions established by the Meeting of the Parties in
paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28;
4. To encourage parties with stockpiles of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs potentially available for export to
parties with essential-use exemptions in 2013 to notify the Ozone Secretariat of such quantities and of a
contact point by 31 December 2012;
paragraph 4 of the present decision;
quantity of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs to the extent required for manufacturing metered-dose inhalers, as
authorized in paragraph 1 of the present decision, from imports, from domestic producers or from existing
stockpiles;
7. To request parties to consider domestic regulations to ban the launch or sale of new CFC-based metered-
dose inhaler products, even if such products have been approved;
inhaler products in order to speed up the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free alternatives;
9. To request China, if it should nominate again in 2013 the use of CFC to be used in traditional Chinese
medicine in remote areas, to provide more information about the absence of alternatives in the region, the
phase out efforts undertaken for this use and other relevant information necessary to allow the Medical
Technical Options Committee to evaluate the case fully.
Annex
Essential-use authorizations for 2013 of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers
(Metric tonnes)
Parties 2013
China 388.82
Russian Federation 212
141
Decision XXIV/4: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace

Noting that the Chemical Technical Options Committee has concluded that the nomination of the Russian
Federation satisfies the criteria to qualify as essential use under decision IV/25, including the absence of
available technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint
of environment and health,
Noting also that the Chemical Technical Options Committee recommended the acceleration of efforts to
MP DECISIONS
introduce appropriate alternatives to investigate materials compatible with alternatives and the adoption of newly
ARTICLE 2
designed equipment to complete the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon-113 (CFC-113) within agreed time
schedule,
Noting that the Russian Federation provided in its essential-use exemption nomination a final phase-out plan and
nominated 2016 as the final date for CFC-113 use in this application,
Noting also that the Russian Federation is continuing its efforts to introduce alternative solvents in order to
gradually reduce consumption of CFC-113 in the aerospace industry to a maximum of 75 metric tonnes in 2015,
2. To request the Russian Federation to continue its efforts to follow up the CFC-113 final phase-out plan
and explore further the possibility of importing CFC-113 of the required quality for its aerospace industry
needs from available global stocks as recommended by the Chemical Technical Options Committee of
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel.
Decision XXV/2: Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2014
The Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXV/2:
disease,
disease,
Noting with concern the delay in the implementation of the conversion project in the Russian Federation,
Welcoming the fact that the Russian Federation does not intend to submit nominations beyond 2014,
Welcoming also the continued progress of several parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in reducing
their reliance on chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers as alternatives are developed, receive
regulatory approval and are marketed for sale,
142
chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as
specified in the annex to the present decision;
2. To request nominating parties to provide the Medical Technical Options Committee with information to
enable the assessment of essential-use nominations, in accordance with the criteria contained in decision
IV/25 and subsequent relevant decisions, as set out in the handbook on essential-use nominations;
3. To encourage parties with essential-use exemptions in 2014 to consider initially sourcing required
pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons from stockpiles where they are available and accessible,
provided that such stockpiles are used subject to the conditions established by the Meeting of the Parties
MP DECISIONS
in paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28;
ARTICLE 2
for export to parties with essential-use exemptions in 2014 to notify the Ozone Secretariat of those
quantities and to provide it with the details of a contact point by 31 December 2013;
5. To request the Secretariat to post on its website details of the potentially available stocks referred to in
6. To urge the Russian Federation to expedite its conversion project with a view to phasing out
7. That parties listed in the annex to the present decision shall have full flexibility in sourcing the quantity of
pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons to the extent required for manufacturing metered-dose
inhalers, as authorized in paragraph 1 of the present decision, from imports, from domestic producers or
from existing stockpiles;
8. To request that parties consider domestic regulations to ban the launch or sale of new chlorofluorocarbon-
inhaler products in order to speed up the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free alternatives.
Annex

(Metric tonnes)
Party 2014
China 235.05
Russian Federation 212
Decision XXV/3: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace

Chemicals Technical Options Committee on the essential-use nomination for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for
aerospace applications,
Noting also that the Russian Federation continues to explore the possibility of importing chlorofluorocarbon-113
for its aerospace industry needs from available global stocks,
143
Noting further that the Russian Federation has been successful in reducing use and emissions in line with the
technical adaptation timetable developed in collaboration with the Chemicals Technical Options Committee,
1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbon-113 in the Russian

Federation for essential-use exemptions for chlorofluorocarbons in its aerospace industry in the amount of
85 metric tonnes in 2014;
2. To request the Russian Federation to explore further the possibility of importing chlorofluorocarbon-113
for its aerospace industry needs from available global stocks;
3. To encourage the Russian Federation to continue its efforts to introduce alternative solvents and adopt
MP DECISIONS
newly designed equipment, with a view to completing the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon-113 by 2016.
ARTICLE 2
Decision XXVI/3: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace

The Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXVI/3:
Chemicals Technical Options Committee on the essential-use nomination for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for
aerospace applications in the Russian Federation,
Noting also that the Russian Federation is successfully continuing efforts to introduce alternative solvents in its
aerospace industry,
Noting further that the Russian Federation has been successful in reducing use and emissions in line with the
technical adaptation timetable developed in collaboration with the Chemicals Technical Options Committee,
1. To authorize the production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbon-113 in the Russian Federation for
essential uses in its aerospace industry in the amount of 75 metric tonnes in 2015;
2. To request the Russian Federation to explore further the possibility of importing chlorofluorocarbon-113
for its aerospace industry needs from available global stocks;
3. To encourage the Russian Federation to continue its efforts to introduce alternative solvents, adopt newly
designed equipment and complete the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon-113 by 2016.
Decisions on essential uses: laboratory and analytical uses
Decision VII/11: Laboratory and analytical uses
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Laboratory and Analytical Uses Working Group of the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;
2. To urge Parties to organize National Consultative Committees to review and identify alternatives to
laboratory and analytical uses and to encourage the sharing of information concerning alternatives and
their wider use;
3. To encourage national standards organizations to identify and review those standards which mandate the
use of ozone-depleting substances in order to adopt where possible ODS-free solvents and technologies;
4. To urge Parties to develop an international labelling scheme and encourage its voluntary adoption to
stimulate awareness of the issue;
144
5. To adopt an illustrative list of laboratory uses as specified in Annex IV of the report of the Seventh
Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.2 of this Handbook] to facilitate reporting as required by decision
VI/9 of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties;
6. To exclude the following uses from the global essential-use exemption, as they are not exclusive to
laboratory and analytical uses and/or alternatives are available:
(a) Refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment used in laboratories, including refrigerated laboratory
equipment such as ultra-centrifuges;
(b) Cleaning, reworking, repair, or rebuilding of electronic components or assemblies;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
(c) Preservation of publications and archives; and
(d) Sterilization of materials in a laboratory;
7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to evaluate the current status of use of
controlled substances and alternatives and report progress on the availability of alternatives to the Ninth
Meeting of the Parties and later meetings;
8. To urge Parties operating under Article 2 to provide funding within their countries and on a bilateral basis
for Parties operating under Article 5 to undertake research and development and activities aimed at ODS
alternatives for laboratory and analytical uses;
9. To agree that controlled substances used for laboratory and analytical purposes shall meet the standards
for purity as specified in decision VI/9.
Decision IX/17: Essential-use exemption for laboratory and analytical uses of ozone-depleting
substances
1. That for 1999, for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, production and
consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of controlled substances in Annexes A and B of the
Protocol only for laboratory and analytical uses, as listed in annex IV to the report of the Seventh Meeting
of the Parties, are authorized, subject to the conditions applied to exemption for laboratory and analytical
uses as contained in annex II to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties;
2. That data for consumption and production should be reported annually under a global essential-use
exemption framework to the Secretariat so that the success of reduction strategies may be monitored;
3. To clarify that essential-use exemptions for laboratory and analytical uses of controlled substances shall
continue to exclude the production of products made with or containing such substances.
Decision X/19: Exemption for laboratory and analytical uses
1. To extend the global laboratory and analytical essential-use exemption until 31 December 2005 under the
conditions set out in annex II of the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report annually on the development and
availability of laboratory and analytical procedures that can be performed without using the controlled
substances in Annexes A and B of the Protocol;
3. That the Meeting of the Parties shall each year, on the basis of information reported by the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel in accordance with paragraph 2 above, decide on any uses of controlled
145
substances which should no longer be eligible under the exemption for laboratory and analytical uses and
the date from which any such restriction should apply;
4. That the Secretariat should make available to the Parties each year a consolidated list of laboratory and
analytical uses that the Parties have agreed should no longer be eligible for production and consumption
of controlled ozone-depleting substances under the global exemption;
5. That any decision taken to remove the global exemption should not prevent a Party from nominating a
specific use for an exemption under the essential uses procedure set out in decision IV/25.
Decision XI/15: Global exemption for laboratory and analytical uses

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
The Eleventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XI/15 to eliminate the following uses from the global
exemption for laboratory and analytical uses for controlled substances, approved in decision X/19, from the year
2002:
(a) Testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water;
(b) Testing of tar in road-paving materials; and
(c) Forensic finger-printing.
Decision XV/8: Laboratory and analytical uses
1. To extend the global laboratory and analytical use exemption under the conditions set out in annex II of
the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties until 31 December 2007;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report annually on the development and
availability of laboratory and analytical procedures that can be performed without using the controlled
substances in Annexes A, B and C (group II and group III substances) of the Protocol;
3. To apply the conditions set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of decision X/19 to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the
present decision.
Decision XVI/16: Laboratory and analytical uses
Recalling decision IX/17 on essential-use exemptions for laboratory and analytical uses of ozone-depleting
substances,
Noting the report of the Implementation Committee requesting guidance from the Parties on the use of
bromochloromethane for laboratory and analytical uses,
Considering that decision XV/8 requests the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report annually on
the development and availability of laboratory and analytical procedures that can be performed without using
controlled substances in Annexes A, B and C, groups II and III, of the Protocol,
1. To include in the global laboratory and analytical use exemption under the conditions set out in annex II
of the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties substances in Annex C, groups II and III, of the Protocol,
2. To apply the conditions set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of decision X/19 to paragraph 1 of the present
decision.
146
Decision XVII/10: Laboratory and analytical critical uses of methyl bromide
1. To authorize, for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, production and
consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E of the Protocol, necessary to satisfy laboratory and
analytical critical uses;
2. To agree, subject to paragraph 3 of the present decision, that the relevant illustrative uses listed in annex
IV to the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties are laboratory and analytical critical uses until 31
December 2006, subject to the conditions applied to exemption for laboratory and analytical uses
MP DECISIONS
contained in annex II to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties;
ARTICLE 2
3. That the uses listed in subparagraphs (a) and (c) of paragraph 6 of decision VII/11 and decision XI/15 are
excluded from the uses agreed in paragraph 2 of the present decision;
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to consider the uses and criteria referred to
in paragraph 2 of the present decision in terms of the relevance of their application to laboratory and
analytical critical uses of methyl bromide;
5. To further request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to consider other possible laboratory
and analytical uses for methyl bromide for which information is available;
6. That the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel report to the Open-ended Working Group at its
twenty-sixth meeting on the outcomes of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the present decision;
7. To adopt an illustrative list of analytical and laboratory critical uses for methyl bromide at its Eighteenth
Meeting of the Parties;
8. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report in 2007 and every other year
thereafter on the development and availability of laboratory and analytical procedures that can be
performed without using the controlled substance in Annex E of the Protocol;
9. That the Meeting of the Parties shall, on the basis of information reported by the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel in accordance with paragraph 8 of the present decision, decide on any uses
which should no longer be agreed as laboratory and analytical critical uses and the date from which any
such restriction should apply;
10. That the Secretariat should establish and maintain for the Parties a current and consolidated list of
laboratory and analytical critical uses that the Parties have agreed are no longer laboratory and analytical
critical uses;
11. That any decision taken pursuant to paragraph 9 of the present decision should not prevent a Party from
nominating a specific use under the critical use procedure set out in decision IX/6.
Decision XVII/13: Use of carbon tetrachloride for laboratory and analytical uses in Parties
Bearing in mind that Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol must reduce
consumption of carbon tetrachloride by 85 per cent with respect to their baseline by 2005 and by 100 per cent by
2010,
Considering that carbon tetrachloride has an important use in laboratory and analytical processes; and that
alternatives are not yet available for some of them,
147
Recalling that decision IX/17 introduced an essential-use exemption for laboratory and analytical uses of ozone-
depleting substances and decision XV/8 extended that global exemption to 31 December 2007,
Bearing in mind that according to paragraph 7 of decision IV/25, essential-use controls will not be applicable to
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 until the phase-out dates applicable to those Parties,
Considering that in some Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, the control measures mentioned
above may jeopardize carbon tetrachloride availability for analytical and laboratory processes,
1. That the Implementation Committee and Meeting of the Parties should defer until 2007 consideration of
the compliance status in relation to control measures for carbon tetrachloride of Parties operating under
MP DECISIONS
paragraph 1 of Article 5 which provide evidence to the Ozone Secretariat with the data report, submitted
ARTICLE 2
in accordance with Article 7, showing that the deviation from the respective consumption target is due to
the usage of carbon tetrachloride for analytical and laboratory processes. This deferral should be reviewed
at the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in order to address the period 2007–2009;
2. To urge Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to minimize the consumption of carbon
tetrachloride in laboratory and analytical uses by applying the criteria and procedures of global exemption
for carbon tetrachloride in laboratory and analytical uses that are currently established for Parties not
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5.
Decision XVIII/15: Laboratory and analytical critical uses of methyl bromide
Noting with appreciation the work undertaken by the Chemicals Technical Options Committee and the Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee in considering, in accordance with decision XVII/10, the relevance to
laboratory and analytical critical uses of methyl bromide of the categories of uses listed in annex IV to the report
of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties,
Acknowledging that in decision VII/11, adopted in 1995, Parties were encouraged to identify and review the use
of ozone-depleting substances in order to adopt where possible ozone-depleting substance-free technologies,
Noting that the aforementioned committees have reported that alternatives to methyl bromide are available for
many laboratory and analytical critical uses, including methylating agent uses,
Noting that the aforementioned committees were not in favour of classifying field trials using methyl bromide as
laboratory and analytical critical uses because of the impracticality and cost of using a large number of small
containers of 99 per cent pure methyl bromide and that Parties wishing to carry out such field trials could submit
critical-use nominations for that purpose,
Recognizing that some laboratory and analytical critical uses listed in the committees’ report are applicable to
both quarantine and pre-shipment and to feedstock uses, which are not controlled under the Montreal Protocol,
1. To authorize, for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, the production and consumption of
the controlled substance in Annex E of the Protocol necessary to satisfy laboratory and analytical critical
uses and subject to the conditions established in paragraph 2 of the present decision;
2. Subject to the conditions applied to the exemption for laboratory and analytical uses contained in annex II
to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties, to adopt a category of laboratory and analytical critical
use to allow methyl bromide to be used:
(a) As a reference or standard:
(i) To calibrate equipment which uses methyl bromide;
(ii) To monitor methyl bromide emission levels;
148
(iii) To determine methyl bromide residue levels in goods, plants and commodities;
(b) In laboratory toxicological studies;
(c) To compare the efficacy of methyl bromide and its alternatives inside a laboratory;
(d) As a laboratory agent which is destroyed in a chemical reaction in the manner of feedstock;
3. That any decision taken pursuant to the present decision does not preclude a Party from nominating a
specific use under the critical use procedure described in decision IX/6.
MP DECISIONS
Decision XIX/17: Use of carbon tetrachloride for laboratory and analytical uses in Parties
ARTICLE 2
Recognizing the difficulties faced by countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol
in their search for viable alternatives to analytical methods that comply with international standards,
Considering that carbon tetrachloride plays an important role in analytical and laboratory processes and that
there are currently no alternatives to it for some of those processes in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5,
Recalling that in decision XVII/13 the Parties agreed that the Implementation Committee and the Meeting of the
Parties should defer until 2007 consideration of the compliance status in relation to the Montreal Protocol
control measures for carbon tetrachloride of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Recalling also that in decision XVII/13 the Parties agreed that the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties would
review the deferral referred to above in order to address the period 2007–2009,
1. That the Implementation Committee and the Meeting of the Parties should defer until 2010 consideration
of the compliance status in relation to the control measures for carbon tetrachloride of Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 which provide evidence to the Ozone Secretariat with their data reports,
submitted in accordance with Article 7, showing that any deviation from the respective consumption target is
due to the use of carbon tetrachloride for analytical and laboratory processes;
2. To urge Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to minimize the consumption of carbon
tetrachloride in laboratory and analytical uses by applying the global exemption criteria and procedures
for laboratory and analytical uses of carbon tetrachloride currently established for Parties not operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5.
Decision XIX/18: Laboratory and analytical-use exemption
1. To extend until 31 December 2011 the global laboratory and analytical-use exemption, under the
conditions set out in annex II of the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties and decisions XV/8,
XVI/16, and XVIII/15, for the controlled substances in all annexes and groups of the Montreal Protocol
except Annex C, group 1;
Committee to provide, by the Twenty-first Meeting of the Parties, a list of laboratory and analytical uses
of ozone-depleting substances, indicating those for which alternatives exist and which are therefore no
longer necessary and describing those alternatives;
3. To eliminate the testing of organic matter in coal from the global exemption for laboratory and analytical
uses of controlled substances.
149
Decision XXI/6: Global laboratory use exemption
Noting the reports the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) provided under Decision XVII/10
and under Decision XIX/18 on laboratory and analytical uses of ozone depleting substances (ODS).
Noting that TEAP has identified in its report a number of procedures for which alternatives to the use of ODS
are available, as summarised below:
(a) Analyses in which the ODS is used as a solvent for spectroscopic measurements:
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
(i) of hydrocarbons (oil and grease) in water or soil
(ii) of simethicone (polydimethylsiloxane)
(iii) when recording infrared and nuclear magnetic resonance spectra, including hydroxyl index
(b) Analyses in which the ODS is used as a solvent for electrochemical methods of analysis of:
(i) cyanocobalamin
(ii) bromine index
(c) Analyses involving selective solubility in the ODS of:
(i) cascarosides
(ii) thyroid extracts
(iii) polymers
(d) Analyses in which the ODS is used to preconcentrate the analyte, for:
(i) liquid chromatography (HPLC) of drugs and pesticides
(ii) gas chromatography of organic chemicals such as steroids
(iii) adsorption chromatography of organic chemicals
(e) Titration of iodine with thiosulfate (iodometric analyses) for determination of:
(i) iodine
(ii) copper
(iii) arsenic
(iv) sulphur
(f) Iodine and bromine index measurements (titrations)
(g) Miscellaneous analyses, namely
(i) stiffness of leather
(ii) jellification point
150
(iii) specific weight of cement
(iv) gas mask cartridge breakthrough
(h) Use of ODS as a solvent in organic chemical reactions
(i) O- and N-difluoromethylation
(i) General use as laboratory solvent, namely
(i) washing of NMR tubes
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
(ii) removal of greases from glassware
Recalling Decisions VII/11, XI/15, XVIII/15 and XIX/18 that already eliminated the following uses from the
global exemption for laboratory and analytical uses:
(a) Refrigeration and air conditioning equipment used in laboratories, including refrigerated laboratory
equipment such as ultra-centrifuges;
(b) Cleaning, reworking, repair, or rebuilding of electronic components or assemblies;
(c) Preservation of publications and archives;
(d) Sterilization of materials in a laboratory;
(e) Testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water;
(f) Testing of tar in road-paving materials;
(g) Forensic finger-printing;
(h) All laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide except:
(i) As a reference or standard:
– To calibrate equipment which uses methyl bromide;
– To monitor methyl bromide emission levels;
– To determine methyl bromide residue levels in goods, plants and commodities;
(ii) In laboratory toxicological studies;
(iii) To compare the efficacy of methyl bromide and its alternatives inside a laboratory;
(iv) As a laboratory agent which is destroyed in a chemical reaction in the manner of feedstock;
(i) Testing of organic matter in coal
Recalling the conditions applied to the exemption for laboratory and analytical uses contained in Annex II of the
report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties.
1. to extend the applicability of the global laboratory and analytical use exemption also to countries
operating under Article 5(1) from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010 for all ODS except those in
Annex B Group III, Annex C Group I and Annex E.
151
2. to extend the global laboratory and analytical use exemption beyond 31 December 2010 until 31
December 2014:
(a) for Parties operating under Article 5(1) for all ODS except those in Annex B Group III, Annex C
Group I and Annex E, and
(b) for Parties not operating under Article 5(1) for all ODS except those in Annex C Group I
3. to request all Parties to urge their national standards-setting organisations to identify and review those
standards which mandate the use of ODS in laboratory and analytical procedures with a view to adopting,
where possible, ODS-free laboratory and analytical products and processes;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
4. to request the Ozone Secretariat to enter into discussion with the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), ASTM International (ASTM), the European Committee for Standardization
(CEN) as well as with other relevant multinational standardisation organisations encouraging them to
identify methods based on ODS and to expedite the inclusion of non-ODS alternative methods,
techniques and substances in their standard methods;
5. to request the TEAP and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee to complete the report as requested
under Decision XIX/18 and to provide for the 30th Open-ended Working Group meeting
(a) a list of laboratory and analytical uses of ODS, including those uses where no alternatives exist.
(b) to identify the international and national standards that require the use of ODS and to indicate the
corresponding alternative standard methods not mandating the use of ODS.
(c) to consider the technical and economical availability of those alternatives in Article-5 and non-
Article-5 parties as well as to ensure that the alternative methods show similar or better statistical
properties (for example accuracy or detection limits).
6. to request TEAP while continuing its work as described in paragraph 5, to evaluate the availability of
alternatives for those uses already banned under the global exemption in Parties operating under Article
5(1), considering technical and economical aspects. By the 30th meeting of the Open-ended Working
Group TEAP should present its findings and recommendations whether exemptions would be required for
parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 for any of the uses already banned.
7. to allow Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 until 31 December 2010 to deviate from the
existing laboratory and analytical use bans in individual cases, where a Party considers that this is
justified, and to ask Parties to revisit this issue at the 22nd Meeting of the Parties.
8. to request the Ozone Secretariat to update the list of laboratory and analytical uses that the Parties have
agreed should no longer be eligible under the global exemption, as required by Decision X/19 and to
write to Parties reporting laboratory and analytical uses of ozone depleting substances encouraging them
to transition to non-ozone depleting alternatives, where allowed by their national standards.
9. to request Parties to continue to investigate domestically the possibility of replacing ODS in those
laboratory and analytical uses listed in the report by the TEAP and to make this information available to
the Ozone Secretariat by 30 April 2010.
10. to encourage UNEP to invite representatives of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee to regional
network meetings to raise awareness of ODS alternatives for laboratory and analytical uses where
problems have been specifically identified by members of that network. Where considered necessary
other representatives from competent authorities of Parties could be invited to participate in the meeting.
152
Decision XXII/7: Global laboratory and analytical use exemption
Recalling paragraph 7 of decision XXI/6, which allows parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 until 31
December 2010 to deviate from the existing laboratory and analytical use bans in individual cases, where a party
considers that this is justified, and asks parties to revisit the issue at the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties,
Considering that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel did not provide all information requested by
decision XXI/6 in time for the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties and that the parties were therefore unable
to evaluate the situation in respect of laboratory and analytical uses by parties operating under paragraph 1 of
MP DECISIONS
Article 5 of the Protocol,
ARTICLE 2
Noting that some parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 continue to have difficulty adopting
alternatives for those laboratory and analytical uses already banned under the global exemption and need more
time for information collection and related policy framework development,
1. To allow parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 until 31 December 2011 to deviate from the
existing laboratory and analytical use bans in individual cases, where a party considers that this is
justified, and to ask parties to revisit the issue at the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties;
2. To request parties to continue to investigate domestically the possibility of replacing ozone-depleting

substances in those laboratory and analytical uses listed in the reports of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel prepared in accordance with decisions XVII/10 and XIX/18 and to report progress to
the Ozone Secretariat by 30 April 2011.
Decision XXIII/6: Global laboratory and analytical-use exemption
Recalling decision XXI/6, in which parties are requested to investigate the possibility of replacing
ozone-depleting substances with alternatives identified by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in
its 2010 progress report,
Recalling further decision XI/15, by which the parties, among other things, eliminated the use of
ozone-depleting substances for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water from the
global exemption for laboratory and analytical uses,
Acknowledging the work being carried out by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to identify
ozone-depleting substances still being used for laboratory and analytical purposes, ozone-depleting substances
that might still be mandated in certain standards, and available alternatives to ozone-depleting substances,
Noting that individual parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol have reported
difficulty in implementing existing alternatives to the use of carbon tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and
total petroleum hydrocarbons in water and claim to need more time for information collection and related policy
framework development,
1. To allow parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 until 31 December 2014 to deviate from the
existing ban on the use of carbon tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum
hydrocarbons in water in individual cases where such parties consider doing so to be justified;
2. To clarify that any deviation beyond that described in the preceding paragraph should take place only in
accordance with an essential-use exemption, in particular in respect of:
(a) The use of carbon tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in
water beyond 2014;
(b) Any other use already excluded from the global laboratory exemption beyond 2012;
153
3. To request parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to continue to take action to replace ozone-
depleting substances for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water as soon as
possible;
4. To request parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 that use carbon tetrachloride for the testing of
oil, grease or total petroleum hydrocarbons in water in accordance with paragraph 1 above to report
annually to the Secretariat, together with their Article 7 report every year, on the quantities of carbon
tetrachloride used, including information on the procedures followed for using the substance, any
alternative methods or procedures being investigated and the expected timeframe during which the Party
will make use of the global exemption;
5. That the Implementation Committee and the Meeting of the Parties should defer until 2015 consideration
MP DECISIONS
of the compliance status in relation to the control measures for carbon tetrachloride for the testing of oil,
ARTICLE 2
grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water of parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 that
provide evidence to the Secretariat, with their data reports submitted in accordance with Article 7,
showing that any deviation from the consumption target for carbon tetrachloride is due to the use of that
substance in accordance with paragraph 1 above;
6. To request the Secretariat to prepare a reporting form to assist parties reporting information under
paragraph 4 above;
7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review information provided by parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in accordance with paragraph 4 above, provide those parties with
information and advice on means and methods of achieving a transition to the use of non-ozone-depleting
substances, and report annually on information provided and progress in assisting parties;
8. To request the Panel and interested parties, with support from the Secretariat, to prepare information on
laboratory and analytical uses for the purpose of assisting parties to achieve a transition to alternative
methods and procedures and invites parties to consider contributing resources and information for that
purpose;
9. To request the Panel to continue its work in reviewing international standards that mandate the use of
ozone-depleting substances and to work with the organizations that promulgate such standards to include
non-ozone-depleting substances and procedures as applicable;
10. To remind parties of the categories and examples of laboratory uses contained in annex IV of the report of
the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, as updated by decision XI/15 and listed by the Panel in its progress
reports, which can be used as a basis for determining what uses might be deemed to be laboratory and
analytical uses.
Decision XXVI/4: Essential-use exemption for laboratory and analytical uses for 2015 in China
Recalling decision XI/15, by which the parties, among other things, eliminated the use of ozone-depleting
substances for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water from the global exemption for
laboratory and analytical uses,
Recalling also decision XXIII/6, by which parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal
Protocol were allowed until 31 December 2014 to deviate from the existing ban on the use of carbon
tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water in individual cases where
such parties considered doing so to be justified and in which it was clarified that any deviation beyond that
should take place only in accordance with an essential-use exemption in respect of the use of carbon
tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water beyond 2014,
154
Noting that a party has reported difficulty in implementing existing alternatives to the use of carbon tetrachloride
for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water and claims to need more time for the
revision and promotion of national standards,
1. To encourage that party, which has applied for an exemption, to complete the revision of its relevant
national standard and to ensure that a revised national standard is brought into force as soon as possible,
with a view to ensuring a smooth transition to a method that does not use ozone-depleting substances;
2. To authorize the level of consumption for 2015 necessary to satisfy essential uses of carbon tetrachloride
for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water, as specified in the annex to the
present decision.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Essential-use authorizations for 2015 for carbon tetrachloride for testing of oil, grease and total petroleum
hydrocarbons in water
(Metric tonnes)
Party 2015
China 80
Decision XXVI/5: Global laboratory and analytical-use exemption
Recalling decisions VII/11 and XXI/6, in which the Meeting of the Parties requested all parties to urge their
national standards-setting organizations to identify and review their standards for laboratory and analytical
procedures that mandate the use of Montreal Protocol controlled substances with a view to adopting, where
possible, laboratory and analytical products and processes that do not use controlled substances,
Recalling also decisions VII/11, XI/15, XVIII/15 and XIX/18, by which the Meeting of the Parties eliminated
specific uses from the global exemption for laboratory and analytical uses,
1. To extend the global laboratory and analytical-use exemption until 31 December 2021, under the
conditions set out in annex II to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties and decisions XV/8,
XVI/16 and XVIII/15, for the controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol in all annexes and
groups except Annex C, group 1;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report no later than 2018 on the
development and availability of laboratory and analytical procedures that can be performed without using
controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol;
3. To encourage parties to continue to investigate domestically the possibility of replacing ozone-depleting

substances in laboratory and analytical uses and to share the resulting information.
Decision XXVII/2: Essential-use exemption for laboratory and analytical uses for 2016 in China
The Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXVII/2:
Recalling decision XI/15, by which the parties, among other things, eliminated the use of
ozone-depleting substances for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water from the
global exemption for laboratory and analytical uses,
Recalling also decision XXIII/6, by which parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal
Protocol were allowed until 31 December 2014 to deviate from the existing ban on the use of carbon
155
tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water in individual cases where
such parties considered doing so to be justified, and in which it was clarified that any deviation beyond that
should take place only in accordance with an essential-use exemption in respect of the use of carbon
tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water beyond 2014,
Noting that China has reported difficulty in implementing existing alternatives to the use of carbon tetrachloride
for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water and has indicated that it needs more time
for the revision and promotion of national standards and has expressed its willingness to take the measures
necessary to implement the alternatives as soon as possible,
1. To encourage China, which has applied for an exemption, to complete the revision of its relevant national
MP DECISIONS
standard and to ensure that a revised national standard is brought into force as soon as possible with a
ARTICLE 2
view to ensuring a smooth transition to a method that does not use ozone-depleting substances;
2. To authorize the level of consumption for China for 2016 necessary to satisfy essential uses of carbon
tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water, as specified in the
annex to the present decision.
Annex
Essential-use authorizations for 2016 for carbon tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and total
petroleum hydrocarbons in water
(Metric tonnes)
Party 2016
China 70
Decisions on essential uses: metered-dose inhalers (MDIs)
Decision VIII/10: Actions by Parties not operating under Article 5 to promote industry’s
participation on a smooth and efficient transition away from CFC-based MDIs
1. That Parties not operating under Article 5 will request companies applying for MDI essential-use
exemptions to demonstrate ongoing research and development of alternatives to CFC MDIs with all due
diligence and/or collaborate with other companies in such efforts and, with each future request, to report
in confidence to the nominating Party whether and to what extent resources are deployed to this end and
progress is being made on such research and development, and what licence applications if any have been
submitted to health authorities for non-CFC alternatives;
exemptions to demonstrate that they are undertaking individual or collaborative industry efforts, in
consultation with the medical community, to educate health-care professionals and patients about other
treatment options and the transition to non-CFC alternatives;
exemptions to demonstrate that they, or companies distributing or selling their product, are differentiating
the packaging of the company’s non-CFC MDIs from its CFC MDIs and are applying other appropriate
marketing strategies, in consultation with the medical community, to encourage doctor and patient
acceptance of the company’s non-CFC alternatives subject to health and product-safety considerations;
4. That Parties not operating under Article 5 will request companies manufacturing, distributing or selling
CFC MDIs and non-CFC alternatives not to engage in false or misleading advertising targeted at non-
CFC alternatives or CFC MDIs;
156
exemptions to ensure that participation in regulatory proceedings is conducted with a view toward
legitimate environmental, health and safety concerns;
6. That Parties not operating under Article 5 will request companies manufacturing CFC MDIs to take all
economically feasible steps to minimize CFC emissions during the manufacture of MDIs;
7. That Parties not operating under Article 5 will request companies manufacturing, distributing or selling
CFC MDIs to dispose of expired, defective, and returned MDIs containing CFCs in a manner that
minimizes CFC emissions;
MP DECISIONS
8. That Parties not operating under Article 5 will request companies manufacturing CFC MDIs to review
ARTICLE 2
annually CFC requirements and current MDI market forecasts, and notify national regulatory authorities
if such forecasts will result in surplus CFCs obtained under essential-use exemptions;
exemptions to provide information on the steps that are being taken to provide a continuity of supply of
asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatments (including CFC MDIs) to
importing countries;
exemptions to provide information that demonstrates the steps being taken to assist the company’s MDI
manufacturing facilities in Parties operating under Article 5 and countries with economies in transition in
upgrading the technology and capital equipment needed for manufacturing non-CFC asthma and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatments;
11. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to reflect paragraphs 1 through 10 above in a
revised version of the Handbook on Essential-Use Nominations.
Decision VIII/11: Measures to facilitate a transition by a Party not operating under Article 5 from
CFC-based MDIs
The Eighth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VIII/11 to note that a transition is occurring from the use of
CFC-based MDIs to non-CFC treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In order to
ensure a smooth and efficient transition, and protect the health and safety of patients, Parties not operating under
Article 5 are encouraged:
1. To promote coordination between national environmental and health authorities on the environmental,
health and safety implications of any proposed decisions on essential-use nominations and MDI transition
policies;
2. To request their national authorities to expedite review of marketing/licensing/pricing applications of

non-CFC treatments of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, provided that such expedited
review does not compromise patient health and safety;
3. To request their national authorities to review the terms for public MDI procurement and reimbursement,
so that purchasing policies do not discriminate against non-CFC alternatives.
157
Decision VIII/12: Information gathering on a transition to non-CFC treatments for asthma and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for Parties not operating under Article 5
Technical Options Committee pursuant to decision IV/25 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties and
decision VII/28 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties;
2. To note with appreciation that one new non-CFC-based MDI for one active ingredient has now entered
the market in some countries, and that others are anticipated over the next one to three years. Other non-
CFC treatments and devices already provide a suitable alternative for many patients in some Parties not
MP DECISIONS
operating under Article 5;

ARTICLE 2
3. To request Parties not operating under Article 5 that have developed a national transition strategy to
report to the Panel and its relevant Technical Options Committee on the details of that national transition
strategy for non-CFC treatments of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in time for
meetings of the Technical Options Committee, beginning in 1997;
Committee to provide an interim report on progress in the development and implementation of national
transition strategies in Parties not operating under Article 5 for non-CFC treatments of asthma and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and report to the Open-Ended Working Group in
preparation for the Ninth Meeting of the Parties;
5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to further examine and provide a progress
report to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties and a final report to the Tenth Meeting of the Parties on issues
surrounding a transition to non-CFC treatments of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in
Parties not operating under Article 5 that is fully protective of public health. In so doing, the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel should consult with international bodies, such as the World Health
Organization and other institutions representing health-care professionals, patient-advocacy groups and
private industry, and with national bodies and Governments. The Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel should consider:
(a) In the context of a transition phase, how decisions taken within the Montreal Protocol framework
and national strategies might complement each other;
(b) The impact on the right and ability of patients in Parties operating under Article 5, in countries with
economies in transition, in Parties not operating under Article 5 with large disadvantaged
communities and in importing countries to receive CFC-based MDIs where medically acceptable
and affordable alternatives are not available due to reductions in essential-use exemptions in Parties
not operating under Article 5 for CFC-based MDIs;
(c) The influence of potential transferable essential use exemptions as well as existing and potential
trade restrictions by individual countries on a smooth transition and access to affordable treatment
options;
(d) The international markets and fluidity of trade in CFC-based MDIs as well as alternative treatments
for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
(e) The implications for patient subgroups which may have continuing compelling medical needs after a
virtual phase-out;
(f) The range of regulatory and non-regulatory incentives for, and impediments to, research and
development of alternative treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
market penetration of alternative treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
(g) The degree to which dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and other treatment options may be considered
medically acceptable and affordable alternatives for CFC-based MDIs in consultation with the
158
above bodies, and as a result, the factors which may influence their ability to act as substitutes in
different countries;
(h) The relative implications for the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances of different policy options
that facilitate the transition to non-CFC treatments;
(i) Steps that could be taken to facilitate access to affordable non-CFC treatment options and
technology.
Decision IX/19: Metered-dose inhalers (MDIs)
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
1. To note with appreciation the interim report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP)
pursuant to decision VIII/12;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue its work and submit the final
report to the Tenth Meeting of the Parties, through the Open-ended Working Group, taking into account
the approach indicated in paragraph 5 of decision VIII/12 and the comments made during the fifteenth
and sixteenth meetings of the Open-ended Working Group and the Ninth Meeting of the Parties;
3. To note the expectation of TEAP and its relevant Technical Options Committee that it remains possible
that the major part of the MDI transition may occur in non-Article 5 countries by the year 2000 and there
will be minimal need for CFCs for metered-dose inhalers by 2005, however, at this point in time there are
still many variables and an exact time-scale is not possible to predict with certainty;
4. To note the concerns of some non-Article 5 Parties that they may not be able to convert as soon as they
would like unless their independent MDI manufacturers are able to license non-CFC technologies;
5. To require non-Article 5 Parties submitting essential-use nominations for CFCs for MDIs for the
treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to present to the Ozone
Secretariat an initial national or regional transition strategy by 31 January 1999 for circulation to all
Parties. Where possible, non-Article 5 Parties are encouraged to develop and submit to the Secretariat an
initial transition strategy by 31 January 1998. In preparing a transition strategy, non-Article 5 Parties
should take into consideration the availability and price of treatments for asthma and COPD in countries
currently importing CFC MDIs;
5 bis. To require Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 submitting essential-use nominations for
chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease to present to the Ozone Secretariat an initial national or regional transition strategy by
31 January 2010 for circulation to all Parties. Where possible, Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 are encouraged to develop and submit to the Secretariat an initial transition strategy by
31 January 2009. In preparing a transition strategy, Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
should take into consideration the availability and price of treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease in countries currently importing chlorofluorocarbon-containing metered-dose inhalers
Decision IX/20: Transfer of essential-use authorizations for CFCs for MDIs
1. That all transfers of essential-use authorizations for CFCs for MDIs be reviewed on a case-by-case basis
at Meetings of the Parties for approval;
159
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of the present decision, to allow the Secretariat, in consultation with the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, to authorize a Party, in an emergency situation, to transfer
some or all of its authorized levels of CFCs for essential uses in MDIs to another Party, provided that:
(a) The transfer applies only up to the maximum level that has previously been authorized for the
calendar year in which the next Meeting of the Parties is to be held;
(b) Both Parties involved agree to the transfer;
(c) The aggregate annual level of authorizations for all Parties for essential uses of MDIs does not
increase as a result of the transfer;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
(d) The transfer or receipt is reported by each Party involved on the essential-use quantity-accounting
format approved by the Eighth Meeting of the Parties by paragraph 9 of decision VIII/9.
Decision XII/2: Measures to facilitate the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free metered-dose

inhalers
1. For the purposes of this decision, “chlorofluorocarbon metered-dose inhaler product” means a
chlorofluorocarbon-containing metered-dose inhaler of a particular brand name or company, active
ingredient(s) and strength;
2. That any chlorofluorocarbon metered-dose inhaler product approved after 31 December 2000 for
treatment of asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a non-Article 5(1) Party is not an
essential use unless the product meets the criteria set out in paragraph 1(a) of decision IV/25;
2 bis. That any chlorofluorocarbon metered-dose inhaler product approved after 31 December 2008, excluding
any product in the process of registration and approved by 31 December 2009, for treatment of asthma
and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, is not
an essential use, unless the product meets the criteria set out in paragraph 1 (a) of decision IV/25;
3. With respect to any chlorofluorocarbon metered-dose inhaler active ingredient or category of products
that a Party has determined to be non-essential and thereby not authorized for domestic use, to request:
(a) The Party that has made the determination to notify the Secretariat;
(b) The Secretariat to maintain such a list on its Web site;
(c) Each nominating Party to reduce accordingly the volume of chlorofluorocarbons it requests and
licenses;
4. To encourage each Party to urge each metered-dose inhaler company within its territory to diligently seek
approval for the company’s chlorofluorocarbon-free alternatives in its domestic and export markets, and
to require each Party to provide a general report on such efforts to the Secretariat by 31 January 2002 and
each year thereafter;
5. To agree that each non-Article 5 Party should, if it has not already done so:
(a) Develop a national or regional transition strategy based on economically and technically feasible
alternatives or substitutes that it deems acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health
and that includes effective criteria and measures for determining when chlorofluorocarbon metered-
dose inhaler product(s) is/are no longer essential;
(b) Submit the text of any such strategy to the Secretariat by 31 January 2002;
(c) Report to the Secretariat by 31 January each year thereafter on progress made on its transition to
chlorofluorocarbon-free metered-dose inhalers;
160
6. To encourage each Article 5(1) Party to:
(a) Develop a national or regional transition strategy based on economically and technically feasible
alternatives or substitutes that it deems acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health
and that includes effective criteria and measures for determining when chlorofluorocarbon metered-
dose inhaler product(s) can be replaced with chlorofluorocarbon-free alternatives;
(b) Submit the text of any such a strategy to the Secretariat by 31 January 2005;
(c) Report to the Secretariat by 31 January each year thereafter on progress made on its transition to
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
7. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to consider providing technical, financial
and other assistance to Article 5(1) Parties to facilitate the development of metered-dose inhaler transition
strategies and the implementation of approved activities contained therein, and to invite the Global
Environment Facility to consider providing the same assistance to those eligible countries with economies
in transition;
8. To decide that, as a means of avoiding unnecessary production of new chlorofluorocarbons, and provided
that the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) - (d) of decision IX/20 are met, a Party may allow a metered-
dose inhaler company to transfer:
(a) All or part of its essential use authorization to another existing metered-dose inhaler company; or
(b) Chlorofluorocarbons to another metered-dose inhaler company provided that the transfer complies
with national/regional licence or other authorization requirements;
9. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to summarize and review by 15 May each
year the information submitted to the Secretariat;
10. To modify as necessary the Handbook for Essential Use Nominations to take account of the requirements
contained in this decision as they pertain to non-Article 5(1) Parties;
11. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to consider and report to the next Meeting of
the Parties on issues related to the campaign production of chlorofluorocarbons for chlorofluorocarbon
metered-dose inhalers.
Decision XIII/9: Metered-dose inhaler (MDI) production
To request the Executive Committee to prepare guidelines for the presentation of MDI projects involving the
preparation of strategies and investment projects that would enable the move to CFC-free production of MDIs in
Article 5 countries, and enable them to meet their obligations under the Montreal Protocol.
Decision XIII/10: Further study of campaign production of CFCs for metered-dose inhalers
(MDIs)
Noting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and Technical Options Committee review
recommended that just-in-time production of CFCs for the manufacture of metered-dose inhalers is the best
approach to protect the health of patients,
161
Noting, however, the possibility that just-in-time production of CFCs for the manufacture of CFC-based MDIs
may not be available through to the end of the transition, and that the end of just-in-time production could come
unexpectedly,
1. To note with appreciation the work of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Technical
Options Committees in studying the issue of campaign production of CFCs for manufacturing CFC-based
MDIs;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and Technical Options Committees to
analyse the current essential-use decisions and procedures to identify if changes are needed to facilitate
expedient authorization for campaign production, including information needed for the review and
MP DECISIONS
authorization of nominations for campaign production quantities, the contingencies for under- and over-
ARTICLE 2
estimation of the quantities needed for a campaign production, the timing of the campaign production vis-
à-vis export and import of those quantities, the oversight and reporting on the use of campaign production
quantities, and the flexibility in ensuring that the campaign production is used only in the manufacture of
MDIs for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or that any excess is
destroyed;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to present its findings to the Open-ended
Working Group in 2002;
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue to monitor and report on the
timing of the likely need for campaign production.
Decision XIV/5: Global database and assessment to determine appropriate measures to

complete the transition from chlorofluorocarbon metered-dose inhalers
Noting that while the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free (CFC-free) alternative treatments for asthma and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) depends largely on non-Article 5(1) Parties adopting effective
transition strategies and CFC metered-dose inhaler manufacturers diligently developing, seeking approval for,
and launching CFC-free metered-dose inhalers and dry-powder inhalers;
Noting with concern the slow transition to CFC-free metered-dose inhalers in some Parties, and the need for
affordable and available alternatives in Parties operating under Article 5(1);
Recognizing the desirability of a more transparent presentation of data to assist Parties in better understanding
essential use CFC volumes and gauging progress on, and impediments to, the transition;
1. To request each Party or regional economic integration organization to submit available information to
the Ozone Secretariat by 28 February 2003 and annual updates thereafter the following information
concerning inhaler treatments for asthma and COPD that contain CFCs or that do not contain CFCs:
(a) CFC and non-CFC metered-dose inhalers and dry-powder inhalers: sold or distributed within the
Party, by active ingredient, brand/manufacturer, and source (import or domestic production);
(b) CFC and non-CFC metered-dose inhalers and dry-powder inhalers: produced within the Party for
export to other Parties, by active ingredient, brand/manufacturer, source and importing Party;
(c) Non-CFC metered-dose inhalers and dry-powder inhalers: date approved, authorized for marketing,
and/or launched in the territory of the Party;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to take into account information submitted
pursuant to paragraph 1 and other available information in its annual assessment, and to request the
Parties to pay due consideration to this information when reviewing their national transition strategies.
162
Decision XV/5: Promoting the closure of essential-use nominations for metered-dose inhalers
Recognizing that Parties themselves have the ultimate competence, responsibility and accountability for the
protection of the health and safety of their citizens, and for their actions to protect the ozone layer,
Acknowledging the urgent need to accelerate the phase-out of CFC-containing metered-dose inhalers in Parties
not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and the importance of safe, effective and affordable metered-dose
inhalers for public health and medical care,
MP DECISIONS
Bearing in mind the work of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel drawing on the database
ARTICLE 2
established by decision XIV/5,
Aware in particular that CFC-free salbutamol metered-dose inhalers are available in most Parties not operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Mindful of the 2003 assessment of the Panel, which concludes that the development of CFC-free metered-dose
inhalers, their registration and launch into a market cannot alone lead to a full uptake in the market without
appropriate domestic regulatory action,
1. That the present decision shall not affect the operation of paragraph 10 of decision VIII/9 relating to the
authorization of a quantity of CFCs in an emergency situation;
2. To request that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, when submitting their nominations
for essential-use exemptions for CFCs for metered-dose inhalers, specify, for each nominated use, the
active ingredients, the intended market for sale or distribution and the quantity of CFCs required;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Technical Options Committee to
make recommendations on nominations for essential-use exemptions for CFCs for metered-dose inhalers
from Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 with reference to the active ingredient of the
metered-dose inhalers in which the CFCs will be used and the intended market for sale or distribution and
any national transition strategy covering that intended market which has been submitted according to
decision XII/2 or decision IX/19;
4. That no quantity of CFCs for essential uses shall be authorized after the commencement of the
Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties if the nominating Party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
has not submitted to the Ozone Secretariat, in time for consideration by the Parties at the twenty-fifth
meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, a plan of action regarding the phase-out of the domestic use
of CFC-containing metered-dose inhalers where the sole active ingredient is salbutamol;
4 bis. That no quantity of chlorofluorocarbons for essential uses shall be authorized after the commencement of
the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties if the nominating Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
has not submitted to the Ozone Secretariat, in time for consideration by the Parties at the twenty-ninth
meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, a preliminary plan of action regarding the phase-out of the
domestic use of chlorofluorocarbon-containing metered-dose inhalers where the sole active ingredient is
salbutamol;
5. That the plans of action referred to in paragraph 4 above must include:
(a) A specific date by which time the Party will cease making nominations for essential-use exemptions
for CFCs for metered-dose inhalers where the sole active ingredient is salbutamol and where the
metered-dose inhalers are expected to be sold or distributed on the market of any Party not operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
(b) The specific measures and actions sufficient to deliver the phase-out;
163
(c) Where appropriate, the actions or measures needed to ensure continuing access to or supply of CFC-
containing metered-dose inhalers by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
6. To request each Party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to submit to the Ozone Secretariat as
soon as practicable for that Party specific dates by which time it will cease making nominations for
essential-use exemptions for CFCs for metered-dose inhalers where the active ingredient is not solely
salbutamol and where the metered-dose inhalers are expected to be sold or distributed on the market of
any Party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report, in time for the twenty-fourth
meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, on the potential impacts of the phase-out of CFCs in Parties
not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 on the availability of affordable inhaled therapy in Parties
MP DECISIONS
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;

ARTICLE 2
8. To request the Ozone Secretariat to post on its web site all data submitted pursuant to decision XIV/5 that
are designated non-confidential by the submitting Party;
9. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to modify the Handbook on Essential Use
Nominations to reflect the present decision.
Decision XVII/14: Difficulties faced by some Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of
the Montreal Protocol with respect to chlorofluorocarbons used in the manufacture of metered-
dose inhalers
Acknowledging that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol have phased
out chlorofluorocarbons but under specific conditions, can apply for essential-use exemption for the
consumption of chlorofluorocarbons in the manufacture of metered-dose inhalers as specified by the Meeting of
the Parties,
Concerned that Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol which consume
chlorofluorocarbons for the manufacture of metered-dose inhalers may find it difficult to phase out these
substances without incurring economic losses to their countries,
Calling upon the parent pharmaceutical companies to accelerate the transfer of non-chlorofluorocarbon
technologies to their joint venture partners in developing countries,
Noting the need for further work to be undertaken to assemble and document the new non-ozone-depleting
substances methods of technology for metered-dose inhalers that would allow elimination of further uses of
chlorofluorocarbons,
Noting with concern that there is a serious risk that, for some Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
consumption levels in 2007 of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhaler uses may exceed the allowable
amounts,
Aware of the critical need by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 for the consumption of metered-
dose inhalers for protecting human health,
Recognizing also the difficulties that may be faced by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in
obtaining sufficient supply of Annex A, group I (chlorofluorocarbons) controlled substances during the period
2007–2009,
1. To consider at the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties a possible decision which would address the
difficulties that some Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 may face in relation to metered-
dose inhalers;
164
2. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to examine situations such as these and
consider options that might assist this potential situation of non-compliance;
3. To request the Executive Committee to consider appropriate regional workshops to create awareness and
educate stakeholders, including doctors and patients, on alternative metered-dose inhalers and on the
elimination of chlorofluorocarbons in metered-dose inhaler uses and technical assistance to Article 5
Parties to phase out this use;
4. To request the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-sixth meeting to consider the issue.
Decision XVIII/16: Difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties manufacturing metered-dose
MP DECISIONS
inhalers which use chlorofluorocarbons
ARTICLE 2
Recognizing that Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 must reduce consumption of Annex A, group I,
controlled substances (chlorofluorocarbons) by 85 per cent of their baseline by 2007 and complete the phase-out
of those substances by 1 January 2010, including chlorofluorocarbons used in metered-dose inhalers for the
treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
Bearing in mind that, according to paragraph 7 of decision IV/25, essential-use controls will not be applicable to
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 until the phase-out dates applicable to those Parties,
Recognizing the potential uncertainty of supplies of pharmaceutical grade chlorofluorocarbons in the near future
and the impact on people’s health and local businesses if national manufacturing plants which depend on imports
of those substances cannot predict their availability,
Aware that the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers in Parties not operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 is likely to be complete by the phase-out deadline for Parties operating under Article 5
and that most of the metered-dose inhalers used by patients in many Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 are imported from Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Acknowledging that some Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 have adopted metered-dose inhaler
transition strategies, as encouraged by decision XII/2, but noting that most Parties operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 have yet to put in place national or regional transition strategies and that Parties that produce
metered-dose inhalers will be unable to finalize such strategies unless technology conversion is included in their
national plans,
Understanding, therefore, that there is a need for further measures to facilitate the transition to non-
chlorofluorocarbon treatments for asthma and obstructive pulmonary disease in Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Mindful that in some cases a regional approach to transition may be the most efficient,
Noting that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of article 5 have made substantial progress in replacing
chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers with alternative products but that at the present time still require
a limited amount of pharmaceutical grade chlorofluorocarbons to produce metered-dose inhalers, as
demonstrated by current essential-use exemption requests granted by the Parties,
Taking into account that decision XVII/14 calls for the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to consider taking a
decision addressing the difficulties faced by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 on metered-dose
inhaler transition,
1. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal
Protocol to consider as a matter of urgency the funding of projects in relation to those Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 that experience difficulties due to high consumption of
chlorofluorocarbons for manufacturing metered-dose inhalers, in order to facilitate the transition from
chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers;
165
2. To request the Executive Committee to consider within the context of the existing Multilateral Fund
guidelines to review its decision 17/7 with regard to the existing cut-off date for consideration of
metered-dose inhaler conversion projects consistent with the reality of the pace of technological advances
in the metered-dose inhaler sector;
3. To request the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol
to consider all possible options on how to address the potential non-compliance difficulties of some
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 resulting from their high proportion of
chlorofluorocarbon consumption in the metered-dose inhaler sector;
4. To further request the Implementation Committee to give special consideration to the situation of such
MP DECISIONS
Parties, particularly in the context of paragraph 4 of the non-compliance procedure of the Protocol, in the
ARTICLE 2
light of information received from the Parties concerned and having due regard to health considerations;
5. To consider again the matter referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 at the twentieth Meeting of the Parties in
2008;
6. To request the Executive Committee to consider including on the agenda of the United Nations
Environment Programme thematic regional workshops, information to clarify the steps required to
advance the transition from chlorofluorocarbon metered-dose inhalers;
7. To request each Party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 receiving essential-use exemptions for
the production or import of chlorofluorocarbons to manufacture metered-dose inhalers for export to
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to submit to each importing Party a detailed export
manufacturing transition plan for each manufacturer where the exports of an active ingredient to that
Party exceed 10 metric tonnes, specifying the actions that each manufacturer is taking and will take to
transition its exports to chlorofluorocarbon-free metered-dose inhalers as expeditiously as possible in a
manner that does not put patients at risk;
8. That each manufacturer’s export manufacturing transition plans should include specific details for each of
the manufacturer’s export markets and for each metered-dose inhaler by active ingredient concerning:
(a) Timing of submission to the health authority of marketing applications for chlorofluorocarbon-free
alternatives, expected approval and launch of such alternatives and withdrawal of associated
chlorofluorocarbon product or products;
(b) Indicative information on facilitative pricing, licensing and/or technology transfer arrangements
under consideration;
(c) Contribution to, and participation in, programmes for educating health care professionals,
government health authorities and patients about the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free treatments
for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
9. Consistent with decision IV/25 and paragraph 4 of decision XII/2, to request each Party referred to in
paragraph 7 of the present decision, when deciding whether to nominate essential-use volumes for and/or
grant essential-use licenses to a manufacturer, to take into account the manufacturer’s efforts to
implement its export manufacturing transition plan and its contribution to transition towards
10. To request each Party referred to in paragraph 7 to submit each year to the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, as part of the Party’s essential-use nomination, a report summarizing the export
manufacturing transition plans submitted, taking care to protect any confidential information;
11. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to consider such reports in its assessment of
each Party’s essential-use nominations;
12. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assess and report on progress at the
twenty-seventh meeting Open-ended Working Group and to report to the Nineteenth Meeting of the
166
Parties on the need for, feasibility of, optimal timing of, and recommended quantities for a limited
campaign production of chlorofluorocarbons exclusively for metered-dose inhalers in both Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5.
Decision XX/4: Campaign production of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers
MP DECISIONS
Acknowledging that chlorofluorocarbon consumption and production in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
ARTICLE 2
Article 5 will cease from 1 January 2010, with possible essential-use exemptions,
Acknowledging also that many Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 import chlorofluorocarbon-free
metered-dose inhalers from Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Recognizing that campaign production offers potential advantages in lieu of annual essential-use nominations
under decision IV/25 to meet needs for pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons,
Noting that decision XVIII/16, paragraph 12, requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to
assess “quantities for a limited campaign production of chlorofluorocarbons exclusively for metered-dose
inhalers in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5,”
Noting also that the Medical Technical Options Committee presented findings concerning the amounts of
chlorofluorocarbons that may be needed for metered-dose inhalers only for Parties operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 in 2008,
Acknowledging that the Medical Technical Options Committee has reported the need for additional information
concerning the operations of a final campaign for Article 5 Parties except from one major manufacturing Party,
1. To request that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel present a report to the Twenty-First
Meeting of the Parties, preceded by a preliminary report to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-
ninth meeting, concerning:
(a) The potential timing for final campaign production, taking into account, among other things, the
information submitted in the nominations for 2010 and that some Parties operating under paragraph
1 of Article 5 may prepare essential use nominations for the first time for the Twenty-First Meeting
of the Parties;
(b) Options for long-term storage, distribution, and management of produced quantities of
pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons before they are needed by Parties, including existing
methods used by Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
(c) Options for minimizing the potential for too much or too little chlorofluorocarbons production as
part of a final campaign;
(d) Contractual arrangements that may be necessary, considering the models currently used by Parties
not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 that submit essential-use nominations consistent with
decision IV/25;
(e) Options for reducing production of non-pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons, together with

options for final disposal of such chlorofluorocarbons;
2. To request the Multilateral Fund Secretariat to report to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-
ninth meeting on the status of agreements to convert metered-dose inhaler manufacturing facilities
located in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and the implementation of approved projects.
167
Decision XXVI/2: Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2015
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
disease,
disease,
Welcoming the continued progress of several parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in reducing their
chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as
specified in the annex to the present decision;
2. To request nominating parties to provide the Medical Technical Options Committee with information to
enable the assessment of essential-use nominations, in accordance with the criteria contained in decision
IV/25 and subsequent relevant decisions, as set out in the handbook on essential-use nominations;
3. To encourage parties with essential-use exemptions in 2015 to consider initially sourcing required
pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons from stockpiles where they are available and accessible,
provided that such stockpiles are used subject to the conditions established by the Meeting of the Parties
in paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28;

for export to parties with essential-use exemptions in 2015 to notify the Ozone Secretariat of those
quantities and to provide it with the details of a contact point by 31 December 2014;
5. To request the Secretariat to post on its website details of the potentially available stocks referred to in
6. That the party listed in the annex to the present decision shall have full flexibility in sourcing the quantity
of pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons to the extent required for manufacturing metered-dose
inhalers, as authorized in paragraph 1 of the present decision, from imports, from domestic producers or
from existing stockpiles;
7. To request that parties consider domestic regulations to ban the launch or sale of new chlorofluorocarbon-
8. To encourage parties to fast-track their administrative processes for the registration of metered-dose
inhaler products in order to speed up the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free alternatives.
168
Annex

(Metric tonnes)
Party 2015
China 182.61
Decisions on CFCs
MP DECISIONS
Decision IX/23: Continuing availability of CFCs
ARTICLE 2
1. To note that despite the phase-out of the production and consumption of CFCs by 1 January 1996 in
Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, CFCs continue to remain available in fairly
significant quantities in a number of such Parties, thereby preventing the timely elimination of the use and
emissions of CFCs;
2. To note that information suggests that illegal trade in CFCs is contributing to their continued availability,
and therefore to increased and unnecessary damage to the ozone layer;
3. To note that apart from agreed exempted uses, the continued supply of new CFCs is no longer necessary,
as technically and economically feasible alternatives are widely available;
4. To request non-Article 5 Parties to consider banning the placing on the market and sale of virgin CFCs,
except to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and other
exempted uses. Parties may also consider extending this ban to include other substances listed in Annex
A and B to the Montreal Protocol and recovered, recycled and reclaimed substances, provided that
adequate steps are taken to ensure their disposal;
5. To request the Parties concerned to report to the Secretariat in time for the Eleventh Meeting of the
Parties on action taken under this decision.
Decision XI/16: CFC management strategies in non-Article 5 Parties
1. To recall that decision IV/24 urges all Parties to take all practicable measures to prevent releases of
controlled substances into the atmosphere;
2. To recall also that decision IX/23 requests non-Article 5 Parties to consider banning the placing on the
market and sale of virgin CFCs, except to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5 Parties and other
exempted uses;
3. To note that other strategies, besides those considered in decision IX/23, could help to reduce emissions
of CFCs from existing equipment;
4. To note that, in the case of halons, decision X/7 requests Parties to develop strategies for the management
of halons, including emissions reductions and ultimate elimination of their use;
5. To request that each non-Article 5 Party develops and submits to the Ozone Secretariat, by July 2001, a
strategy for the management of CFCs, including options for recovery, recycling, disposal and eventual
elimination of their use. In preparing such a strategy, taking into account technological and economic
feasibility, Parties should consider the following options:
169
(a) Recovering, and eliminating where appropriate, CFCs from existing or out-of-service products and
equipment;
(b) Setting target dates for bans on the refilling and/or the use of refrigeration and air-conditioning
equipment functioning on CFCs;
(c) Ensuring that appropriate measures are taken for the environmentally safe and effective storage,
management and final disposition of recovered CFCs;
(d) Encouraging the use of CFC substitutes and replacements acceptable from the standpoint of
environment and health, taking into account their impact on the ozone layer, and any other
MP DECISIONS
environmental issues.
ARTICLE 2
Decision XIV/9: The development of policies governing the service sector and final use of
chillers
To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to collect data and assess the portion of the
refrigeration service sector made up by chillers and identify incentives and impediments to the transition to non-
CFC equipment and prepare a report;
To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to submit the report to the 2003 Open-ended
Working Group meeting for their consideration.
Decision XVI/13: Assessment of the portion of the refrigeration service sector made up by
chillers and identification of incentives and impediments to the transition to non-CFC
equipment
Noting with appreciation the report of the chiller task force on the collection of data and assessment of the
portion of the refrigeration service sector made up by chillers, as decided in decision XIV/9,
Noting that the chiller sector has been and will be a long-term challenge for both developed and developing
countries owing to its distinct character, as has been brought out by the report of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel,
Recognizing the need to develop a management plan for CFC-based chillers in the Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5, to facilitate CFC phase-out in chillers,
Recognizing also the urgent need for effective replacement programmes to phase out consumption of CFCs,
Recognizing further the need for economic incentives for assisting enterprises in these countries to speed up the
replacement programme,
Recognizing the impediments and uncertainties brought out by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
in its report related to the lack of information for decision makers and lack of policies and regulatory measures
needed to be set up for CFC phase-out in the chiller sector,
To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to consider:
(a) Funding of additional demonstration projects to help demonstrate the value of replacement of CFC-based
chillers, pursuant to relevant decisions of the Executive Committee;
(b) Funding actions to increase awareness of users in countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of
the impending phase-out and options that may be available for dealing with their chillers and to assist
Governments and decision makers;
170
(c) Requesting those countries preparing or implementing refrigerant management plans to consider
developing measures for the effective use of the ozone-depleting substances recovered from the chillers to
meet servicing needs in the sector.
Decisions on halons
Decision I/9: ODP for halon 2402
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/9 to accept the value for the Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP)
for halon 2402, as 6.0, and to request the Secretariat to inform the Depositary that the Parties agreed to accept
this figure by consensus at their first meeting and that accordingly, the Depositary should insert this figure to
MP DECISIONS
replace the words “to be determined” in Annex A to the Montreal Protocol.
ARTICLE 2
Decision II/3: Halons
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/3 with regard to halons to establish an ad hoc working
group of experts to investigate, and make recommendations to the Fourth Meeting of the Parties in 1992 on the
availability of substitutes for halons, the need to define essential uses of halons, methods of implementation and,
if there is such a need, the identification of such uses.
Decision VII/12: Control measures for Parties not operating under Article 5 concerning halons
and other agents used for fire-suppression and explosion-inertion purposes
1. To recommend that all Parties not operating under Article 5 should endeavour, on a voluntary basis, to
limit the emissions of halon to a minimum by:
(a) Accepting as critical those applications meeting the essential-use criteria as defined in decision
IV/25, paragraph 1 (a);
(b) Limiting the use of halons in new installations to critical applications;
(c) Accepting that existing installations for critical applications may continue to use halon in the future;
(d) Considering the decommissioning of halon systems in existing installations, which are not critical
applications, as quickly as technically and economically feasible;
(e) Ensuring that halons are effectively recovered;
(f) Preventing, whenever feasible, the use of halon in equipment testing and for training of personnel;
(g) Evaluating and taking into account only those substitutes and replacements of halon, for which no
other more environmentally suitable ones are available;
(h) Promoting the environmentally safe destruction of halons, when they are not needed in halon banks
(existing or to be created);
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Halons Technical Options Committee
to prepare a report to the Eighth Meeting of the Parties to provide guidance on the above.
Decision VIII/17: Availability of halons for critical uses
Halons Technical Options Committee pursuant to decision VII/12 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties;
171
to carry out, on the basis of existing information, further studies on the future availability of halons to
meet the demands for use in applications that are deemed critical by Parties not operating under Article 5,
and to report to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties;
3. To request Parties not operating under Article 5 to estimate the approximate surplus or deficit relative to
their assessment of their critical needs and to submit this information, together with an explanation of
how it was determined, to the Industry and Environment Programme Activity Centre of the
United Nations Environment Programme by 31 December 1997;
MP DECISIONS
to evaluate the information received from Parties, and to make an assessment, if possible, for the Tenth
ARTICLE 2
Meeting of the Parties of whether there will be adequate quantities of halon to meet future needs for
critical applications of Parties not operating under Article 5, and;
(a) If there is a shortfall, either overall or in individual Parties, to propose action which may be taken to
enable that shortfall to be overcome; or
(b) If there is a surplus, either overall or in individual Parties, to provide guidance on appropriate
policies for disposal or redeployment, bearing in mind the needs of other Parties not operating under
Article 5, as well as the needs of Parties operating under Article 5, and to identify any potential
barriers to such disposal and what steps may be needed to overcome them.
Decision IX/21: Decommissioning of non-essential halon systems in non-Article 5 Parties
Noting that in its 1994 report, the Scientific Assessment Panel identified decommissioning and destruction of
halon as the second most environmentally beneficial potential approach to further lowering stratospheric
chlorine and bromine abundances but that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel concluded that such
an approach, while technically feasible, was not appropriate at that time,
Noting that the Seventh Meeting of the Parties took action in relation to methyl bromide controls, which was the
approach identified by the Scientific Assessment Panel as the most environmentally beneficial approach at that
time,
Noting also that Parties are considering further controls on methyl bromide,
Recognizing that, since 1994, some Parties have taken action to decommission and commence destruction of
non-essential halon,
Recognizing that depletion of the ozone layer continues to be a significant environmental concern and that
atmospheric concentrations of halons continue to increase,
Recognizing that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is currently conducting an assessment of the
availability of halons for critical uses under the terms of decision VIII/17,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to examine the feasibility of early
decommissioning in non-Article 5 Parties of all non-essential halon systems, and the subsequent
destruction or redeployment of halon stocks not required for those critical uses that have no identified
substitutes or alternatives, bearing in mind the need of Article 5 Parties for halon. In undertaking such an
examination, TEAP should also examine the efficacy of halon alternatives, experience with potential
measures to ensure safety and to minimize any emissions of halons during decommissioning, and
experience with the cost and efficiency of storage prior to destruction and with halon destruction
activities undertaken to date;
2. To request TEAP to report on this matter to the Tenth Meeting of the Parties.
172
Decision X/7: Halon-management strategies
Noting that in the executive summary of its 1998 report, the Scientific Assessment Panel identifies
complete elimination and destruction of halon-1211 and 1301 as the most environmentally beneficial
option to enhance the recovery of the ozone layer,
Noting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in its 1998 report pursuant to decision
IX/21, concludes that by definition all non-critical uses of halon-1211 and 1301 can be decommissioned,
taking into account the costs and benefits of such operations,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
1. To request all Parties to develop and submit to the Ozone Secretariat a national or regional strategy for
the management of halons, including emissions reduction and ultimate elimination of their use;
2. To request Parties not operating under Article 5 to submit their strategies to the Ozone Secretariat by the
end of July 2000;
3. In preparing such a strategy, Parties should consider issues such as:
(a) Discouraging the use of halons in new installations and equipment;
(b) Encouraging the use of halon substitutes and replacements acceptable from the standpoint of
environment and health, taking into account their impact on the ozone layer, on climate change and
any other global environmental issues;
(c) Considering a target date for the complete decommissioning of non-critical halon installations and
equipment, taking into account an assessment of the availability of halons for critical uses;
(d) Promoting appropriate measures to ensure the environmentally safe and effective recovery, storage,
management and destruction of halons;
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to update its assessment of the future need
for halon for critical uses, in light of these strategies;
5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report on these matters to the Twelfth
Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XV/11: Plan of action to modify regulatory requirements that mandate the use of
halons on new airframes
Acknowledging that potential alternatives to the use of halons exist to provide the necessary fire protection for
both engine nacelles and cargo bays of commercial aircraft,
Concerned to note that new airframes are still being designed and certified with halons as the required fire
extinguishant owing to regulatory requirements,
Acknowledging that airframe certification agencies and airframe manufacturers will wish to participate in a joint
effort to allow the certification of alternatives to halon on new airframes,
To authorize representatives of the Ozone Secretariat and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to
engage in discussions with the relevant International Civil Aviation Organization bodies in the development of a
timely plan of action to enable consideration of the possibility that modifying the regulatory requirements that
mandate the use of halons on new airframes may be feasible without compromising the health and safety of
airline passengers, and to report thereon to the sixteenth Meeting of the Parties.
173
Decision XIX/16: Follow-up to the 2006 assessment report by the Halons Technical Options
Committee
Welcoming the 2006 assessment report of the Halons Technical Options Committee of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel,
Welcoming also the continuing reduction in global halon use,
Noting the concern expressed by the Halons Technical Options Committee about the availability of certain
MP DECISIONS
halons around the world,

ARTICLE 2
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to undertake a further study on projected
regional imbalances in the availability of halon 1211, halon 1301 and halon 2402 and to investigate and
propose mechanisms to better predict and mitigate such imbalances in the future;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, when undertaking the study, to consult with
the Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund on the outcomes of its study on the operation of halon banks
around the world and to use such information from that study as may be relevant to its own review;
3. To request the Ozone Secretariat to make available 2004, 2005 and 2006 halon consumption figures by
type of halon to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for its study;
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to submit its study in time to allow the
Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to consider its results;
5. To encourage Parties which have requirements for halon 1211, halon 1301 and halon 2402 to provide the
following information to the Ozone Secretariat by 1 April 2008 to assist the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel with its study:
(a) Projected need for halon 1211, halon 1301 and halon 2402 to support critical or essential equipment
through the end of its useful life;
(b) Any difficulties experienced to date, or foreseen, in accessing adequate halons to support critical or
essential equipment;
6. To encourage Parties, on a regular basis, to inform their critical users of halons, including the maritime
industries, the aviation sector and the military, of the need to prepare for reduced access to halons in the
future and to take all actions necessary to reduce their reliance on halons;
7. To request the Ozone Secretariat to write to the International Maritime Organization secretariat and to the
secretariat of the International Civil Aviation Organization to draw their attention to the decreasing
availability of halons for marine and aviation uses and to the need to take all actions necessary to reduce
reliance on halons in their respective sectors.
Decision XXI/7: Management and reduction of remaining uses of halons
Recognizing that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) General Assembly adopted a resolution
A36-12 at its 36th Session encouraging ICAO to continue collaboration with the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel (TEAP) and its Halon Technical Options Committee (HTOC) and requesting its Secretary
General to consider mandates to be effective: (1) in the 2011 timeframe, for the replacement of halon in
lavatories, hand held extinguishers, engines and auxiliary power units in newly designed aircraft; (2) in the 2011
timeframe, for the replacement of halons in lavatories in new production aircraft; and (3) in the 2014 timeframe,
for the replacement of halons in hand held extinguishers for new production aircraft;
174
Recalling that Parties must ensure that the movement of halon is consistent with their obligations under Article
4B and international agreements on waste;
Noting that the 2009 report by the Halon Technical Options Committee observed that legislative barriers
preventing the free flow of recycled halon among Parties could result in halon not being available to meet future
critical needs, including those of the aviation industry.
1. To express the Parties’ continued support for the implementation of mandatory dates by when halon
alternatives will be used in previously agreed upon applications of newly designed aircraft;
2. To request TEAP and its HTOC to continue to engage ICAO on this issue and to report progress on this
MP DECISIONS
issue to the twenty second Meeting of the Parties;
ARTICLE 2
3. To encourage Parties that have implemented import and/or export restrictions of recovered, recycled or
reclaimed halons to consider reassessing their situation with a view towards removing barriers on the
import and export of recovered, recycled or reclaimed halons to allow, wherever possible, their free
movement between Parties to enable Parties to meet current and future needs, even as Parties continue to
transition to available halon alternatives;
4. To encourage Parties to refrain from destroying uncontaminated recovered, recycled, or reclaimed halons
before they have considered their domestic, as well as the global long-term future needs for halons, and to
consider retaining uncontaminated recovered, recycled, reclaimed halons for anticipated future needs in a
manner that employs best practices for storage and maintenance, in order to minimize emissions;
5. To encourage Parties to report their assessments of current and long-term future needs for halons to the
Ozone Secretariat for use by the TEAP and its HTOC in their future assessments of management of halon
banks.
6. To continue to encourage Parties to inform, on a regular basis, their users of halons, including the
maritime industries, the aviation sector and the military, of the need to prepare for reduced access to
halons in the future and to take all actions necessary to reduce their reliance on halons.
Decision XXII/11: Progress by the International Civil Aviation Organization in the transition
from the use of halon
Recognizing with appreciation that the International Civil Aviation Organization General Assembly adopted
resolution A37-9, on halon replacement, at its thirty-seventh session;
Acknowledging that resolution A37-9 states that there is an urgent need to continue developing and
implementing halon alternatives for civil aviation; to intensify development of acceptable halon alternatives for
fire-extinguishing systems in cargo compartments and engine/auxiliary power units; and to continue work to
improve halon alternatives for hand-held fire extinguishers and directs the International Civil Aviation
Organization Council to establish a mandate for the replacement of halon:
(a) In lavatory fire-extinguishing systems used in aircraft produced after a specified date in the 2011
time frame;
(b) In hand-held fire extinguishers used in aircraft produced after a specified date in the 2016 time
frame;
(c) In engine and auxiliary power unit fire-extinguishing systems used in aircraft for which applications
for type certification will be submitted after a specified date in the 2014 time frame,
Recalling that decision XXI/7 expresses the parties’ continued support for the implementation of mandatory
dates by which halon alternatives will be used in agreed applications for newly designed aircraft and requests
that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Halons Technical Options Committee continue to
175
engage the International Civil Aviation Organization on this issue and report on progress at the Twenty-Second
Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,
1. To request the Secretariat to convey to the International Civil Aviation Organization secretariat the
parties’ appreciation for the continued work of its General Assembly and the adoption of resolution A37-
9;
2. To express the parties’ continued support for the implementation of mandatory dates by which halon
alternatives will be used in previously agreed-on applications in newly designed or newly produced
aircraft consistent with resolution A37-9;
MP DECISIONS
3. To request that the Secretariat ask the International Civil Aviation Organization secretariat to send halon
ARTICLE 2
reserves data reported to the International Civil Aviation Organization to the Secretariat annually;
4. To request that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Halons Technical Options
Committee continue to engage with the International Civil Aviation Organization on further uses of halon
on aircraft and report on progress at the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XXVI/7: Availability of recovered, recycled or reclaimed halons
Recognizing that the global production of halons for controlled uses was eliminated in 2009, but that some
remaining uses, in particular for civil aviation, continue to rely on stocks of recovered, recycled or reclaimed
halons for fire safety,
Noting that, despite efforts to evaluate the extent of accessible stocks of recovered, recycled or reclaimed halons,
there is still uncertainty about the quantity of recovered, recycled or reclaimed halons that is accessible for
continuing uses, such as in civil aviation,
Recalling the 1992 International Maritime Organization ban on the use of halons in new ships and noting that
ships containing halons are now being decommissioned,
Recalling also the adoption by the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization of resolutions
A37-9 and A38-9, in which the Assembly expressed an urgent need to continue developing and implementing
halon alternatives for civil aviation and called on manufacturers to use alternatives in lavatory fire extinguishing
systems in newly designed and new production aircraft after 2011, in hand-held fire extinguishers in such
aircraft after 2016, in engine and auxiliary power unit fire-extinguishing systems used in newly designed aircraft
after 2014 and in the cargo compartments of new aircraft by a date to be determined by the Assembly in 2016,
Noting that the import and export of recovered, recycled or reclaimed halons is allowed under the Montreal
Protocol and that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel has found that the current distribution of
recovered, recycled or reclaimed halon stocks potentially may not align with anticipated needs for such stocks,
Recalling paragraph 3 of decision XXI/7, concerning the import and export of recovered, recycled or reclaimed
halons,
Taking note of the progress report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel provided to the parties
before the thirty-fourth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, including information on alternatives,
1. To encourage parties, on a voluntary basis, to liaise, through their national ozone officers, with their
national civil aviation authorities to gain an understanding of how halons are being recovered, recycled or
reclaimed to meet purity standards for aviation use and supplied to air carriers to meet ongoing civil
aviation needs and on any national actions being taken to expedite the replacement of halons in civil
aviation uses as called for by the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization in its
resolutions A37-9 and A38-9;
176
2. To also encourage parties, on a voluntary basis, to submit information provided in accordance with
paragraph 1 of the present decision to the Ozone Secretariat by 1 September 2015;
3. To invite parties, on a voluntary basis, to reassess any national import and export restrictions other than
licensing requirements with a view to facilitating the import and export of recovered, recycled or
reclaimed halons and the management of stocks of such halons with the aim of enabling all parties to
meet remaining needs in accordance with domestic regulations even as they make the transition to halon
alternatives;
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, through its Halons Technical Options
Committee:
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
(a) To continue to liaise with the International Civil Aviation Organization to facilitate the transition to halon
alternatives, to approach the International Maritime Organization to estimate the amount and purity of
halon 1211 and 1301 available from the breaking of ships and to report information on global stocks of
recovered halons to the parties in its 2015 progress report;
(b) To report on existing and emerging alternatives for halons, including information on their characteristics
and their rate of adoption, in particular for aviation uses;
5. To request the Ozone Secretariat to report to the parties, prior to the thirty-seventh meeting of the Open-
ended Working Group, any information provided by parties in accordance with paragraph 1 of the present
decision.
Decisions on carbon tetrachloride
Decision XVI/14: Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions
Noting with appreciation the 2002 report of the Scientific Assessment Panel and the April 2002 report of the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on destruction technologies,
Recognizing the need to understand the latest technology and best practices for mitigating emissions and
destruction of carbon tetrachloride,
Expressing concern that measured atmospheric concentrations of carbon tetrachloride are significant,
Recognizing the need to access further the sources of carbon tetrachloride being measured in the atmosphere,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assess global emissions of carbon
tetrachloride being emitted:
(a) From feedstock and process agent sources situated in Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5;
(b) From sources situated in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 already addressed by
existing agreements with the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund;
(c) From feedstock and process agent uses of carbon tetrachloride applied in Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 not yet addressed by agreements with the Executive Committee of the
Multilateral Fund;
(d) From sources situated both in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and in those not so
operating that co-produce carbon tetrachloride;
(e) From waste and incidental quantities of carbon tetrachloride that are not destroyed in a timely and
appropriate manner;
177
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assess potential solutions for the reduction
of emissions for the categories above;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report for the consideration of
the Parties at the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2006.
Decision XVIII/10: Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions
Noting with appreciation the information presented by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its
MP DECISIONS
Chemicals Technical Options Committee in its May 2006 progress report,

ARTICLE 2
Mindful of the obligations to ensure control measures under Article 2D of the Montreal Protocol regarding
production and consumption of carbon tetrachloride,
Desiring to reduce emissions to background concentration levels, encourage earlier adaptation of ozone-safe
alternatives and set limits on emissions that occur during interim use,
Expressing concern regarding the large discrepancy in reported emissions and observed atmospheric
concentrations, which clearly indicates that emissions from industrial activity are being significantly
underestimated (as of 2002 they were still in the order of 70,000 tonnes (plus or minus 6,000 tonnes)),
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue its assessment of global
emissions of carbon tetrachloride, as set out in decision XVI/14 and other related decisions such as
decision XVII/19, paragraph 6, paying particular attention:
(a) To obtaining better data for industrial emissions to enable resolution of the significant discrepancy
with atmospheric measurements;
(b) To further investigating issues related to production of carbon tetrachloride (including its production
as a by-product and its subsequent use, storage, recycling or destruction);
(c) To estimating emissions from other sources such as landfills;
2. To request that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel prepare a final report on the assessment
referred to in paragraph 1 in time for the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group for
the consideration of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2007.
Decision XXI/8: Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions of
ODS emissions
Recalling Decision XVII/10 on sources of carbon tetrachloride (CTC) emissions and opportunities for reduction,
and the difficulties expressed by Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) in reconciling reported
emissions data and atmospheric concentrations,
Reiterating the concern regarding the large discrepancy between reported emissions and observed atmospheric
concentrations, which suggests that emissions from industrial activity are significantly under reported and
underestimated, or that atmospheric measurements of CTC emissions need to be reconciled,
Acknowledging that CTC can be emitted from processes, stockpiles or containers in the form of vapour or
released from the same sources in liquid or solid waste stream(s) and via products, all of which would also be
considered as emissions,
Mindful of the obligations to ensure compliance with control measures under Article 2D of the Montreal
Protocol regarding production and consumption of carbon tetrachloride,
178
Desiring to reduce emissions to background concentration levels,
Noting the report UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/58/50 of the 58th Executive Committee on emission reductions and
phase-out of carbon tetrachloride in light of decision XVIII/10 of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties and its
verbal report to the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties concluding that the rapid decrease in model-estimated
bottom-up emissions (i.e. based on information from industry and Article 7 data) is significantly lower than
emissions derived from atmospheric measurements for the range of scientifically determined atmospheric
lifetimes.
1. To encourage Parties having any carbon tetrachloride and other chloromethane production and/or
consumption of CTC in pharmaceutical manufacturing processes to review their national data on CTC
MP DECISIONS
production, consumption and where possible estimated emissions and to provide any new data to the
ARTICLE 2
TEAP via the Ozone Secretariat by September 2010;
2. For the purpose of clarification the reference to “emissions” in paragraph 1 means any release from
processes, stockpiles, products, and waste streams, either in the form of vapour or in the form of liquid;
3. To request the TEAP, in its next assessment report in 2011, to investigate chemical alternatives to ODS in
exempted feedstock uses and investigate alternatives, including not-in-kind alternatives, to products made
with such process agents and feedstocks and provide assessment of the technical and economic feasibility
of reducing or eliminating such use and emissions;
4. To request TEAP and the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) to review the ozone depletion potential and
atmospheric lifetime of CTC with a view to possibly reconciling the large discrepancy between emissions
reported and those inferred from atmospheric measurements and to report their findings in the next
quadrennial review;
5. To request the TEAP and SAP to coordinate their relevant findings, taking into account the information
received in relation to paragraphs 1, 3 and 4, and report in time for the thirty-first meeting of the Open-
ended Working Group for the consideration of the Twenty-third Meeting of the Parties in 2011;
6. To encourage all parties to provide support for atmospheric research in the measurement of emissions of
CTC with a particular focus on regions in which there is a need for improved data.
Decision XXIII/8: Investigation of carbon tetrachloride discrepancy
Taking note of the report from the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Scientific Assessment
Panel indicating the existence of a discrepancy between the emissions derived from reported production and
consumption data from both parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and those not so operating and
those inferred from atmospheric measurements,
Noting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is continuing its work and will provide information
as called for in decision XXI/8 relating to carbon tetrachloride,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in cooperation with the Scientific
Assessment Panel, to continue to investigate the possible reasons for the identified discrepancy,
considering in particular the extent to which the discrepancy could be due to:
(a) Incomplete or inaccurate historical reporting of carbon tetrachloride produced;
(b) Uncertainties in the atmospheric lifetime of carbon tetrachloride;
(c) Carbon tetrachloride from unreported or underestimated sources from both parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 and those not so operating;
179
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report on its work in response to
paragraph 1 above to the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XXVII/7: Investigation of carbon tetrachloride discrepancies
Reiterating its concern about the discrepancy between observed atmospheric concentrations and data on carbon
tetrachloride reported in the 2014 assessment reports of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the
Scientific Assessment Panel, indicating that the mismatch between bottom-up inventories and global top-down
estimates of carbon tetrachloride remains unresolved,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Noting with concern that derived emissions of carbon tetrachloride, based on its estimated lifetime and its
accurately measured atmospheric abundances, have become much larger over the last decade than those from
reported production and usage, notwithstanding that some of the discrepancy could be explained by additional
sources unrelated to reported production, such as contaminated soils and industrial waste, and that additional
explanations could include underreported releases to the atmosphere and incorrect partial lifetimes (stratosphere,
ocean or soil),
Recalling decisions IV/12, X/12, XVI/14, XVIII/10, XXI/8 and XXIII/8,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Scientific Assessment Panel to
continue their analysis of the discrepancies between observed atmospheric concentrations and reported
data on carbon tetrachloride and to report and provide an update on their findings to the Twenty-Eighth
Decisions on HCFCs
Decision III/12: Assessment Panels
(a) to request the Assessment Panels and in particular the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to
evaluate, without prejudice to Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, the implications, in particular for
developing countries, of the possibilities and difficulties of an earlier phase-out of the controlled
substances, for example of the implications of a 1997 phase-out;
(b) taking into account the London Resolution on transitional substances (Annex VII to the report of the
Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol) [See Section 3.8 in this Handbook] to identify
the specific areas where transitional substances are required to facilitate the earliest possible phase-out of
controlled substances, taking into account environmental, technological and economic factors, where no
other more environmentally suitable alternatives are available. The quantities likely to be needed for
those areas of application currently served by transitional substances shall both be assessed;
(c) to request the assessment panels to identify the transitional substances with the lowest potential for ozone
depletion required for those areas and suggest, if possible, a technically and economically feasible
timetable, indicating associated costs, for the elimination of transitional substances;
(d) to request the assessment panels to submit their reports in time for their consideration by the Open-ended
Working Group with a view to their submission for consideration by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties;
(e) to endorse Decision II/2, paragraph 2, of the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
Vienna Convention.
Decision IV/30: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
180
(a) to evaluate alternative substances and technologies to the application for HCFCs as refrigerant and
as insulation gas in rigid foam;
(b) to identify other applications for HCFCs, if any, where other more environmentally suitable
alternatives or technologies are not available; and
(c) to submit its findings to the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol no
later than 31 March 1994;
2. to request the Open-ended Working Group to consider the report of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel with respect to HCFCs; to consider the possible need for specific provisions for the
MP DECISIONS
implementation of the regulation on the applications for HCFCs, taking into account the special
ARTICLE 2
circumstances of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol; and to make any
appropriate recommendations for consideration by the Parties at their Meeting in 1994 and following
subsequent reviews taking place under Article 6 of the Protocol;
3. to ensure that, notwithstanding the new status of HCFCs as controlled substances, the incremental costs to
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol of making the transition from CFCs to
HCFCs consistent with the regulation on the applications for HCFCs will continue to be met by the Fund
and to request the Executive Committee to function in the light of this decision;
4. to request the Executive Committee to estimate, on an ongoing basis, the amount of HCFCs required by
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and to recommend the methods of
meeting such needs in full, simultaneously with the exercise to estimate the amounts of controlled
substances needed, as well as to estimate the production available to meet those needs, as requested by
the Open-ended Working Group at its seventh meeting.
Decision V/8: Consideration of alternatives
1. That each Party is requested, as far as possible and as appropriate, to give consideration in selecting
alternatives and substitutes, bearing in mind, inter alia, Article 2F, paragraph 7, of the Copenhagen
Amendment regarding hydrochlorofluorocarbons, to:
(a) Environmental aspects;
(b) Human health and safety aspects;
(c) The technical feasibility, the commercial availability and performance;
(d) Economic aspects, including cost comparisons among different technology options taking into
account:
(i) All interim steps leading to final ODS elimination;
(ii) Social costs;
(iii) Dislocation costs, etc.
(e) Country-specific circumstances and due local expertise;
2. To note that the Executive Committee is taking the above considerations into account as far as
information is available;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Technical Options Committees in the
context of finalizing its report, to provide information on which alternatives and substitutes best satisfied
the above considerations, and to update this information on an annual basis;
181
Decision VI/13: Assessment Panels
The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/13 to request the Panels, as an inclusion in their ongoing
work, to evaluate, without prejudice to Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, the technical and economic feasibility,
and the environmental, scientific, and economic implications for non-Article 5 countries, as well as Article 5
countries, bearing in mind Article 5, paragraph 1 bis, of the Copenhagen Amendment, of:
(a) The alternatives to hydrochlorofluorocarbons in so doing, the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel is requested to consider the ozone-depleting substance substitution potential of not-in-kind
alternatives, in-kind alternatives, and alternative technologies. In assessing this matter, the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel should consider how available alternatives compare with
hydrochlorofluorocarbons with respect to such factors as energy efficiency, total global warming impact,
MP DECISIONS
potential flammability, and toxicity, and the potential impacts on the effective use and phase-out of
ARTICLE 2
chlorofluorocarbons and halons; in time for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at its
eleventh meeting;
In considering these matters, the Scientific Assessment Panel shall consider, if possible, atmospheric chlorine
and bromine loadings and their impact on ozone depletion. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
and Scientific Assessment Panel evaluations shall be solely for the purpose of discussions by the Parties and
shall in no way be construed as recommendations for action.
[The remainder of this decision is located below under ‘Decisions on methyl bromide’]
Decision VIII/13: Uses and possible applications of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
1. That UNEP distribute to the Parties of the Montreal Protocol a list containing the HCFCs applications
which have been identified by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, after having taken into
account the following:
(a) The heading should read “Possible Applications of HCFCs”;
(b) The list should include a chapeau stating that the list is intended to facilitate collection of data on
HCFC consumption, and does not imply that HCFCs are needed for the listed applications;
(c) The use as fire extinguishers should be added to the list;
(d) The use as aerosols, as propellant, solvent or main component, should be included, following the
same structure as for other applications;
2. That the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Technical Options Committee be requested
to prepare, for the Ninth Meeting of the Parties, a list of available alternatives to each of the HCFC
applications which are mentioned in the now available list.
Decision XIX/8: Additional work on hydrochlorofluorocarbons
Noting that by decision XIX/6 the Meeting of the Parties adopted an adjustment to the Montreal Protocol to
accelerate the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and noting the impact of those adjustments on
efforts towards the recovery of the ozone layer,
Expressing appreciation for the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical
options committees in analyzing the global status of HCFC consumption, banks, emissions and technologies and
noting the need for further information on alternative technology acceptance and promotion among Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol (Article 5 Parties),
182
Welcoming the European Commission’s intention to organize and hold a workshop in 2008 on alternatives to
HCFCs and their availability in Article 5 Parties,
Taking into consideration the difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties facing specific climatic conditions and
other unique operating conditions, such as those as in mines that are not open pit mines, in the air-conditioning
and refrigeration sectors,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to conduct a scoping study addressing the
prospects for the promotion and acceptance of alternatives to HCFCs in the refrigeration and air-
conditioning sectors in Article 5 Parties, with specific reference to specific climatic conditions and unique
operating conditions, such as those as in mines that are not open pit mines, in some Article 5 Parties;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide a summary of the outcome of the
study referred to in the preceding paragraph in its 2008 progress report with a view to identifying areas
requiring more detailed study of the alternatives available and their applicability.
Decision XXI/9: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons and environmentally sound alternatives
Noting that the transition from, and phase-out of, ozone-depleting substances has implications for climate system
protection;
Recalling that decision XIX/6 requests the Parties to accelerate the phase-out of production and consumption of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs);
Mindful of the need to safeguard the climate change benefits associated with phase-out of HCFCs;
Aware of the increasing availability of low-Global warming potential (GWP) alternatives to HCFCs, in
particular in the refrigeration, air-conditioning and foam sectors;
Aware also of the need to appropriately ensure the safe implementation and use of low-GWP technologies and
products;
Recalling paragraph 9 and 11 (b) of decision XIX/6;
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), in its May 2010 Progress Report
and subsequently in its 2010 full assessment, to provide the latest technical and economic assessment of
available and emerging alternatives and substitutes to HCFCs; and the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP)
in its 2010 assessment to assess, using a comprehensive methodology, the impact of alternatives to
HCFCs on the environment, including on the climate; and both the SAP and the TEAP to integrate the
findings in their assessments into a synthesis report;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in its 2010 progress report:
(a) To list all sub-sectors using HCFCs, with concrete examples of technologies where low-GWP
alternatives are used, indicating what substances are used, conditions of application, their costs,
relative energy efficiency of the applications and, to the extent possible, available markets and
percentage share in those markets and collecting concrete information from various sources
including information voluntarily provided by Parties and industries. To further ask TEAP to
compare these alternatives with other existing technologies, in particular, high-GWP technologies
that are in use in the same sectors;
(b) To identify and characterize the implemented measures for ensuring safe application of low-GWP
alternative technologies and products as well as barriers to their phase-in, in the different sub-
sectors, collecting concrete information from various sources including information voluntarily
provided by Parties and industries;
183
(c) To provide a categorization and reorganization of the information previously provided in accordance
with decision XX/8 as appropriate, updated to the extent practical, to inform the Parties of the uses
for which low- or no-GWP and/or other suitable technologies are or will soon be commercialized,
including to the extent possible the predicted amount of high-GWP alternatives to ozone-depleting
substances uses that can potentially be replaced;
3. To request the Ozone Secretariat to provide the UNFCCC Secretariat with the report of the workshop on
high global-warming-potential alternatives for ozone-depleting substances;
4. To encourage Parties to promote policies and measures aimed at avoiding the selection of high-GWP
alternatives to HCFCs and other ozone-depleting substances in those applications where other market-
MP DECISIONS
available, proven and sustainable alternatives exist that minimise impacts on the environment, including
ARTICLE 2
on climate, as well as meeting other health, safety and economic considerations in accordance with
decision XIX/6;
5. To encourage Parties to promote the further development and availability of low-GWP alternatives to
HCFCs and other ozone-depleting substances that minimise environmental impacts particularly for those
specific applications where such alternatives are not presently available and applicable;
6. To request the Executive Committee as a matter of urgency to expedite the finalisation of its guidelines
on HCFCs in accordance with Decision XIX/6;
7. To request the Executive Committee, when developing and applying funding criteria for projects and
programmes regarding in particular the phase-out of HCFCs:
(a) to take into consideration paragraph 11 of decision XIX/6;
(b) to consider providing additional funding and/or incentives for additional climate benefits where
appropriate;
(c) to take into account, when considering the cost-effectiveness of projects and programmes, the need
for climate benefits; and
(d) to consider in accordance with decision XIX/6, further demonstrating the effectiveness of low-GWP
alternatives to HCFCs, including in air-conditioning and refrigeration sectors in high ambient
temperature areas in Article 5 countries and to consider demonstration and pilot projects in air-
conditioning and refrigeration sectors which apply environmentally sound alternatives to HCFCs;
8. To encourage Parties to consider reviewing and amending as appropriate, policies and standards which
constitute barriers to or limit the use and application of products with low- or zero-GWP alternatives to
ozone-depleting substances, particularly when phasing out HCFCs.
Decision XXII/9: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons preblended in polyols
Taking into account the importance of the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in the polyurethane foams
sector for compliance with the adjusted phase-out schedule for hydrochlorofluorocarbons in accordance with
decision XIX/6,
Acknowledging with appreciation the efforts by India to bring the issue of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in
preblended polyols to the attention of the parties,
Recognizing the fruitful discussions by the parties on the issue at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended
Working Group,
1. To note with appreciation the cooperative manner in which the members of the Executive Committee of
the Multilateral Fund addressed this issue at the Committee’s sixty-first meeting through decision 61/47,
184
by agreeing on a framework on eligible incremental costs for parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol in their transition from the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in
preblended polyols;
2. To affirm that the issue of the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in preblended polyols has been addressed
to the satisfaction of the parties.
Decision XXIII/9: Additional information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances
MP DECISIONS
To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report in consultation with the other
ARTICLE 2
scientific experts, if necessary, for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting
containing information on, among other things:
(a) The cost of alternatives to hydrochlorofluorocarbons that are technically proven, economically viable and
environmentally benign;
(b) Alternatives to hydrochlorofluorocarbons that are technically proven, economically viable,

environmentally benign and suitable for use in high ambient temperatures, including how such
temperatures may affect efficiency or other factors;
(c) Quantities and types of alternatives already and projected to be phased in as replacements for
hydrochlorofluorocarbons, disaggregated by application, both in parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol and parties not so operating;
(d) An assessment of the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of options in consultation with
scientific experts.
Decision XXIV/7: Additional information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances
Recalling the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on alternatives to
hydrochlorofluorocarbons in the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector in parties operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 with high ambient temperatures and unique operating conditions, submitted to the Open-ended
Working Group at its thirtieth meeting pursuant to decision XIX/8,
Noting with appreciation volume 2 of the 2012 progress report of the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel which responded to Decision XXIII/9,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in consultations with experts from outside
the Panel with the relevant expertise if necessary, to update information on alternatives and technologies
in various sectors and prepare a draft report for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at its
thirty-third meeting and a final report to be submitted to the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties that
would by end use:
(a) Describe all available alternatives to ozone-depleting substances that are commercially available,
technically proven, environmentally-sound, taking into account their efficacy, health, safety and
environmental characteristics, cost-effectiveness, and their use including in high ambient temperatures
and high urban density cities;
(b) Update information provided by previous Panel reports on alternatives under development;
(c) Identify barriers and restrictions to the adoption and commercial use of certain environmentally-sound
alternatives to ozone-depleting substances;
185
(d) Estimate, if possible, the approximate amount of alternatives with negative environmental impacts that
could be or could have been avoided or eliminated by both non-Article 5 and Article 5 parties in the
process of phasing-out ozone-depleting substances;
(e) Identify the opportunities for the selection of environmentally-sound alternatives to HCFCs in the
future;
2. To invite the Panel to take into account any information relevant for the report to be prepared under
paragraph 1 of the present decision provided by parties to the Secretariat.
Decision XXV/5: Response to the report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
MP DECISIONS
on information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances (decision XXIV/7, paragraph 1)

ARTICLE 2
Noting with appreciation volume 2 of the 2012 task force progress report, which responded to decision XXIII/9,
and volume 2 of the 2013 progress report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, which responded
to decision XXIV/7,
Noting the release of the contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, entitled “Climate change 2013: the physical science basis”,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in consultation with external experts if
necessary, to prepare a report for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-fourth
meeting and an updated report to be submitted to the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties that would:
(a) Provide an update on information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in various sectors
and subsectors, and differentiating between parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and
parties not so operating, considering regional differences, and assessing whether such
alternatives are:
(i) Commercially available;
(ii) Technically proven;
(iii) Environmentally sound;
(iv) Energy efficient;
(v) Economically viable and cost-effective;
(vi) Suitable for regions with high ambient temperatures, in particular considering the
refrigeration and air-conditioning sector and their use in high-urban-density cities;
(vii) Suitable for safe uses, in particular considering their potential flammability or
toxicity, and their suitability for use in densely populated urban areas, and describing
potential limitations of their use;
(viii) Easily used;
(b) Estimate current and future demand for alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, taking into
account increased demand, in particular in the refrigeration and air-conditioning sectors and in
parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
(c) Assess, differentiating between parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and those not so
operating, the economic costs and implications, and environmental benefits of various scenarios
of avoiding high-global-warming-potential alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, where
such avoidance is possible, considering the list in subparagraph (a) of the present decision;
(d) Request the Scientific Assessment Panel, in liaison with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, to provide information from the contribution of Working Group 1 to the fifth assessment
report on the main climate metrics, considering the updated information provided in paragraph 1
(a) of the present decision;
2. To convene a workshop, back to back with the thirty-fourth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group,
to continue discussions on hydrofluorocarbon management, taking into account the information requested
in the present decision and previous reports provided in response to decisions XXIII/9 and XXIV/7;
186
3. To encourage parties to provide to the Secretariat, on a voluntary basis, information on their

implementation of paragraph 9 of decision XIX/6, including information on available data, policies and
initiatives pertaining to the promotion of a transition from ozone-depleting substances that minimize
environmental impact wherever the required technologies are available, and to request the Secretariat to
compile any submissions received for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-fourth
meeting;
4. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to consider the information provided in the
report on additional information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances prepared by the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel pursuant to decision XXIV/7 and other related reports, with
a view to considering whether additional demonstration projects to validate whether low-
global-warming-potential alternatives and technologies, together with additional activities to maximize
MP DECISIONS
the climate benefits in the hydrochlorofluorocarbon production sector, would be useful in assisting parties
ARTICLE 2
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in further minimizing the environmental impact of the
hydrochlorofluorocarbon phase-out.
Decision XXVI/9: Response to the report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
Noting with appreciation volume 2 of the 2012 Technology and Economic Assessment Panel report on the task
force progress report which responded to decision XXIII/9, volume 2 of the 2013 progress report of the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel which responded to decision XXIV/7 and volume 4 of the 2014
progress report which responded to decision XXV/5,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, if necessary in consultation with external
experts, to prepare a report identifying the full range of alternatives, including not-in-kind technologies,
and identifying applications where alternatives fulfilling the criteria identified in paragraph 1 (a) of the
present decision are not available, and to make that report available for consideration by the Open-ended
Working Group at its thirty-sixth meeting and an updated report to be submitted to the Twenty-Seventh
Meeting of the Parties that would:
(a) Update information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in various sectors and subsectors and
differentiating between parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and parties not so operating,
considering energy efficiency, regional differences and high ambient temperature conditions in particular,
and assessing whether they are:
(i) Commercially available;
(ii) Technically proven;
(iii) Environmentally sound;
(iv) Economically viable and cost effective;
(v) Safe to use in areas with high urban densities considering flammability and toxicity issues, including,
where possible, risk characterization;
(vi) Easy to service and maintain;
and describe the potential limitations of their use and their implications for the different sectors, in terms of, but
not limited to, servicing and maintenance requirements, and international design and safety standards;
(b) Provide information on energy efficiency levels in the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector referring
to high-ambient temperature zones in international standards;
(c) Taking into account the uptake of various existing technologies, revise the scenarios for current and future
demand elaborated in the October 2014 final report on additional information on alternatives to ozone-
depleting substances of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s task force on decision XXV/5,
and improve information related to costs and benefits with regard to the criteria set out in paragraph 1 (a)
of the present decision, including reference to progress identified under stage I and stage II of HCFC
phase-out management plans;
2. To convene a two-day workshop, back to back with an additional three-day meeting of the Open-Ended
Working Group in 2015, to continue discussions on all issues in relation to hydrofluorocarbon
187
management, including a focus on high-ambient temperature and safety requirements as well as energy
efficiency, taking into account the information requested in the present decision and other relevant
information;
3. To encourage parties to continue to provide to the Secretariat, on a voluntary basis, information on their
implementation of paragraph 9 of decision XIX/6, including information on available data, policies and
initiatives pertaining to the promotion of a transition from ozone-depleting substances that minimizes
environmental impact wherever the required technologies are available, and to request the Secretariat to
compile any such submissions received;
4. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to consider providing additional funding to
conduct inventories or surveys on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in interested parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 upon their request.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Decision XXVII/4: Response to the report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
Noting with appreciation the September 2015 report of the task force of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel addressing the issues listed in subparagraphs 1 (a)–(c) of decision XXVI/9,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, if necessary in consultation with external
experts, to prepare a report for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty–seventh
meeting, and thereafter an updated report to be submitted to the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 2016, that would:
(a) Update, where necessary, and provide new information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances,
including not-in-kind alternatives, based on the guidance and assessment criteria provided in
subparagraph 1 (a) of decision XXVI/9 and taking into account the most recent findings on the suitability
of alternatives at high-ambient temperatures, highlighting in particular:
(i) The availability and market penetration of these alternatives in different regions;
(ii) The availability of alternatives for replacement and retrofit of refrigeration systems in fishing
vessels, including in small island countries;
(iii) New substances in development that could be used as alternatives to
ozone-depleting substances and that could become available in the near-future;
(iv) The energy efficiency associated with the use of these alternatives;
(v) The total warming impact and total costs associated with these alternatives and the systems where
they are used;
(b) Update and extend to 2050 all the scenarios in the decision XXVI/9 report.
Decision XXVII/5: Issues related to the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons
Aware that parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol are taking measures to
reduce and eventually eliminate the production and consumption of the ozone-depleting substances listed in
Annex C, group I (hydrochlorofluorocarbons),
Recognizing that there is some uncertainty about the future use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons by parties not
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 after 2020 for essential uses and for servicing existing refrigeration and
air-conditioning equipment, in accordance with paragraph 6 (a) of Article 2F of the Montreal Protocol,
Recalling paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of decision XIX/6, in which the Meeting of the Parties indicated that further
consideration by the parties of the issues of essential uses, servicing and basic domestic needs should occur by
2015 at the latest,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in relation to Annex C, group I, substances:
188
(a) To identify sectors, including subsectors, if any, where essential uses for parties not operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 may be needed after 2020, including estimations of the volumes of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons to be used;
(b) To assess the future refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment servicing requirements between 2020
and 2030 of parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and to assess whether there is a need for
servicing in other sectors;
(c) To report on recent volumes of production to satisfy basic domestic needs, projected estimates of such
future production and estimated needs of parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to satisfy basic
domestic needs beyond 2020;
2. To invite parties to provide relevant information to the Ozone Secretariat by 15 March 2016 for inclusion
MP DECISIONS
in the Panel’s assessment;
ARTICLE 2
3. To request the Panel to submit its report to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-seventh meeting,
in 2016.
Decisions on methyl bromide
Decision IV/23: Methyl bromide
1. to request the Scientific Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assess
the following, in accordance with Article 6 of the Protocol, and to submit their combined report, through
the Secretariat, by 30 November 1994 at the latest, to the Seventh Meeting of the Parties:
(a) abundance of methyl bromide in the atmosphere and the proportion of anthropogenic emissions
within this abundance of methyl bromide and the ozone-depleting potential of methyl bromide;
(b) methodologies to control emissions into the atmosphere from the various current uses of methyl
bromide and the technical and economic feasibility and the likely results of such controls;
(c) availability of chemical and non-chemical substitutes for the various current uses of methyl
bromide; their cost-effectiveness; the incremental costs of such substitutes, technological and
economic feasibility of substitution for various uses and the benefits to the protection of the ozone
layer by such substitution, taking into account the particular social, economic, geographic and
agricultural conditions of different regions and, specifically, the developing countries;
2. to request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to consider this report
and submit its recommendations to the Seventh Meeting of the Parties in 1995.
Decision VI/13: Assessment Panels
The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/13 to request the Panels, as an inclusion in their ongoing
work, to evaluate, without prejudice to Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, the technical and economic feasibility,
and the environmental, scientific, and economic implications for non-Article 5 countries, as well as Article 5
countries, bearing in mind Article 5, paragraph 1 bis, of the Copenhagen Amendment, of:
(b) Alternatives to methyl bromide, in time for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at its
eleventh meeting;
In considering these matters, the Scientific Assessment Panel shall consider, if possible, atmospheric chlorine
and bromine loadings and their impact on ozone depletion. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
and Scientific Assessment Panel evaluations shall be solely for the purpose of discussions by the Parties and
shall in no way be construed as recommendations for action.
[The remainder of this decision is located above under ‘Decisions on HCFCs’]
189
Decision VII/6: Reduction of methyl bromide emissions
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/6 that Parties should endeavour to reduce methyl
bromide emissions by encouraging producers and users to take appropriate measures to implement, inter alia,
good agricultural practices and improved application techniques.
Decision VII/8: Review of methyl bromide controls
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report to the Ninth Meeting of
MP DECISIONS
the Parties to enable the Parties to consider further adjustments to control measures, on methyl bromide.
ARTICLE 2
In undertaking this task, the Panel should address, inter alia, the availability of viable alternatives of
methyl bromide for specific applications;
2. That, in considering the viability of possible substitutes and alternatives to methyl bromide, the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel shall examine and be guided by the extent to which
technologies and chemicals identified as alternatives and/or substitutes have been tested under full
laboratory and field conditions, including field tests in Article 5 countries and have been fully assessed,
inter alia, as to their efficacy, ease of application, relevance to climatic conditions, soils and cropping
patterns, commercial availability, economic viability and efficacy with respect to specific target pests.
Decision IX/5: Conditions for control measures on Annex E substance in Article 5 Parties
1. That, in the fulfilment of the control schedule set out in paragraph 8 ter (d) of Article 5 of the Protocol,
the following conditions shall be met:
(a) The Multilateral Fund shall meet, on a grant basis, all agreed incremental costs of Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to enable their compliance with the control measures on methyl
bromide. All methyl-bromide projects will be eligible for funding irrespective of their relative cost-
effectiveness. The Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund should develop and apply specific
criteria for methyl-bromide projects in order to decide which projects to fund first and to ensure that
all Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 are able to meet their obligations regarding
methyl bromide;
(b) While noting that the overall level of resources available to the Multilateral Fund during the 1997–
1999 triennium is limited to the amounts agreed at the Eighth Meeting of the Parties, immediate
priority shall be given to the use of resources of the Multilateral Fund for the purpose of identifying,
evaluating, adapting and demonstrating methyl bromide alternative and substitutes in Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5. In addition to the US$10 million agreed upon at the Eighth
Meeting of the Parties, a sum of US$25 million per year should be made available for these
activities in both 1998 and 1999 to facilitate the earliest possible action towards enabling
compliance with the agreed control measures on methyl bromide;
(c) Future replenishment of the Multilateral Fund should take into account the requirement to provide
new and additional adequate financial and technical assistance to enable Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 to comply with the agreed control measures on methyl bromide;
(d) The alternatives, substitutes and related technologies necessary to enable compliance with the
agreed control measures on methyl bromide must be expeditiously transferred to Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 under fair and most favourable conditions in line with Article 10A of
the Protocol. The Executive Committee should consider ways to enable and promote information
exchange on methyl bromide alternatives among Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
and from Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to Parties operating under that
paragraph;
190
(e) In light of the assessment by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in 2002 and bearing
in mind the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of decision VII/8 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties,
paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the Protocol, sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) above and the functioning of the
Financial Mechanism as it relates to methyl bromide issues, the Meeting of the Parties shall decide
in 2003 on further specific interim reductions on methyl bromide for the period beyond 2005
applicable to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
2. That the Executive Committee should, during 1998 and 1999, consider and, within the limits of available
funding, approve sufficient financial resources for methyl-bromide projects submitted by Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in order to assist them to fulfil their obligations in advance of the
agreed phase-out schedule.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Decision XII/1: Methyl bromide production by non-Article 5 Parties for basic domestic needs in
2001
1. To take note, with appreciation, of the conclusions of the Legal Drafting Group as to an unintended error
in the Beijing Adjustment regarding the level of allowable production of methyl bromide for basic
domestic needs;
2. To take note of the fact that the average production of methyl bromide for basic domestic needs in non-
Article 5 Parties reported for the period 1995-1999 did not exceed 10 per cent of their calculated level of
production in 1991;
3. To express the hope and expectation that, in the light of the above, each Party’s methyl bromide
production levels during 2001 will continue to remain within the 10 per cent production allowance for
methyl bromide for basic domestic needs, as intended by the Parties in Beijing.
Decision XV/12: Use of methyl bromide for the treatment of high-moisture dates
Recognizing that in its 2002 report, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee has explicitly
acknowledged that there is currently no alternative to the use of methyl bromide for high-moisture dates that is
in use in any country in the world,
Recognizing also that Parties which consume over 80 per cent of their methyl bromide for high-moisture dates
cannot meet the Protocol’s methyl bromide control schedule without production losses for that important cash
crop for their countries,
Recognizing further the need for further work to be undertaken to demonstrate alternatives to methyl bromide for
high moisture dates,
1. That the Implementation Committee and Meeting of the Parties should defer the consideration of the
compliance status of countries that use over 80 per cent of their consumption of methyl bromide on high-
moisture dates until two years after the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel formally finds that
there are alternatives to methyl bromide that are available for high-moisture dates;
2. That the above provision shall apply so long as the relevant Party does not increase consumption of
methyl bromide on products other than high-moisture dates beyond 2002 levels, and the Party has noted
its commitment to minimizing the use of methyl bromide for dates to the extent necessary to ensure
effective control of pests;
3. To request the Executive Committee to consider appropriate demonstration projects for alternatives on
high-moisture dates, and to ensure that the results of those projects are shared with the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel.
191
Decision Ex.I/2: Accelerated phase-out of methyl bromide by Article 5 Parties
Reaffirming the commitment of all the Parties to the complete phase-out of methyl bromide,
Recognizing that some Article 5 Parties have made commitments to an accelerated phase-out of controlled uses
of methyl bromide and have concluded agreements with the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
towards that end,
Acknowledging that some Article 5 Parties which are implementing early phase-out of methyl bromide on a
MP DECISIONS
voluntary basis and under such agreements are facing difficulties in fully meeting all the reduction steps in
ARTICLE 2
accordance with the timelines specified in such agreements as a result of specific circumstances not envisaged at
the time of their adoption and ensuing review,
1. To request the Executive Committee to adopt a flexible approach when determining an appropriate course
of action to deal with instances where a country has not met a reduction step specified in its methyl
bromide accelerated phase-out agreement as a result of the specified circumstance not envisaged;
2. To invite the Executive Committee to consider, upon request by a Party, a prolongation of the final
reduction step, but not beyond 2015, and to consider also the timing of related funding in the Party’s
existing agreement for the accelerated phase-out of methyl bromide in cases where the Party concerned
has demonstrated that there are difficulties in implementing alternatives originally considered to be
technically and economically feasible alternatives;
3. To call upon the Executive Committee to adopt criteria for the prolongation of accelerated phase-out
agreements when so requested by interested Parties. In developing such criteria, the Executive Committee
may request the advice of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and Methyl Bromide
Technical Options Committee and consider any available information relating to the phase-out project of
the Party concerned.
Decision XVI/7: Trade in products and commodities treated with methyl bromide
Noting that many of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol derive a
portion of their national income from trade in commodities which currently rely on methyl bromide for their
production or shipment,
Acknowledging that alternative practices, treatments and products are becoming increasingly available for
methyl bromide treatments,
Recalling that, taking into account the shared but differentiated responsibilities of the Parties regarding the
protection of the ozone layer, the aim of each Party to the Montreal Protocol is to phase out the controlled ozone-
depleting substances,
1. To invite the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, subject to rights and obligations under this agreement and
any other international agreements, not to restrict trade in products or commodities from Parties that have
ratified the Montreal Protocol provisions regarding methyl bromide and are otherwise in compliance with
their Montreal Protocol obligations just because the commodities or products have been treated with
methyl bromide, or because the commodities have been produced or grown on soil treated with methyl
bromide;
2. To welcome the continuing efforts of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal
Protocol in the adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide.
192
Decision XVI/9: Flexibility in the use of alternatives for the phasing out of methyl bromide
Considering the willingness of the Parties to comply with the requirements under the Montreal Protocol and its
phase-out schedules,
Considering that the development of alternatives to methyl bromide has come up against unforeseen difficulties,
for certain crops such as melons, flowers and strawberries, owing to specific local and agricultural conditions,
Taking into account that these agricultural technologies need to be adapted and new expertise must be put in
MP DECISIONS
place for such specific conditions,
ARTICLE 2
Aware that the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, facing this situation, seek continued technical
support and the flexibility to adapt the necessary technical assistance in order to help build these capacities and
find a more satisfactory solution to the use of alternatives,
To request the appropriate bodies to evaluate the progress already made and the necessary adjustments to reach
the stated goals.
Decision XVII/11: Recapturing/recycling and destruction of methyl bromide from space

fumigation
Welcoming the 2005 progress report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,
Noting in particular that the report was inconclusive on recommendations on recapturing, recycling and
destruction, but highlighted local environmental and occupational health and safety concerns,
Recalling decision XI/13, paragraph 7, “to encourage the use of methyl bromide recovery and recycling
technology (where technically and economically feasible) to reduce emissions of methyl bromide, until
alternatives to methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment uses are available”,
Noting that recapture of methyl bromide from small-scale fumigations in containers is already carried out in
several countries,
Recognizing the need to further reduce methyl bromide emissions in an effort to protect the ozone layer,
1. To encourage Parties who have deployed in the past, currently deploy or plan to deploy technologies to
recapture/recycle/destroy or reduce methyl bromide emissions from fixed facilities or sea container
fumigation applications to submit to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel details of efficacy,
including destruction and removal efficiency (DRE), logistical issues and the economic feasibility of such
fumigations, by 1 April 2006;
2. To encourage Parties to report on any harmful by-products created using such technologies;
3. To adopt the form annexed to this decision for the purpose of submitting data;
4. To include the findings of data submitted in the 2006 progress report of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel and summarize Parties’ positive and negative past experiences of recovery and
destruction technologies.
193
Decision XXIII/14: Key challenges facing methyl bromide phase-out in parties operating under
Noting that the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s task force on the 2012–2014
replenishment does not include a funding requirement for methyl bromide phase-out activities in Africa for the
triennium 2012–2014, since all of the eligible funding for the region has already been approved,
Aware that methyl bromide is the only ozone-depleting substance directly connected to food security (production
and post-harvest applications), and that its phase-out could easily be reversed,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Considering that it is necessary to continue to use chemical and non-chemical alternatives, and that the efficacy
of those alternatives in the short term, medium term and long term should be taken into consideration,
Noting with concern that some applications of methyl bromide, such as the treatment of high-moisture fresh
dates, still lack alternatives,
Aware that methyl bromide consumption, particularly in the quarantine and pre-shipment sector, is increasing in
many parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol,
Acknowledging that some African countries report that there is strong pressure to return to methyl bromide use
as a result of the non-sustainability of alternatives, both in terms of availability and cost,
Noting that some African countries further report that certain chemical and non-chemical alternatives that have
been adopted to replace methyl bromide in Africa have been unsustainable for various technical, economic
and/or regulatory reasons,
Aware that some chemical alternatives that have been adopted and are relied upon are being or will be banned
completely in the future, Concerned that the application of some chemical alternatives is complicated and not
cost-effective,
Recalling that methyl bromide is used in Africa to protect crops, which are considered to be the backbone of the
economies of many parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Mindful that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee pointed out in its May 2011 progress report that
parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 might wish to submit critical-use nominations for the remaining
uses of methyl bromide that they consider appropriate for 2015 and possibly thereafter,
Taking into consideration the difficult and complex technical process involved in submitting critical-use
nominations,
Protocol to consider requesting its Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, when carrying out the
evaluation approved at its sixty-fifth meeting on methyl bromide projects in Africa, to consider options
for a strategy to achieve the sustainable use of effective alternatives to methyl bromide in Africa;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in view of its May 2011 progress report, to
consider whether the guidelines and criteria for the preparation of critical-use nominations of methyl
bromide need any modification to take into account the situation of parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 and to report on this issue to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-third meeting.
194
Decisions on hydrofluorocarbons
Decision XXVII/1: Dubai pathway on hydrofluorocarbons
Recognizing the Montreal Protocol’s history of success in achieving collaborative and consensus-based
outcomes and that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are replacements for ozone-depleting substances that parties to
the Montreal Protocol are already successfully phasing out,
1. To work within the Montreal Protocol to an HFC amendment in 2016 by first resolving challenges by
generating solutions in the contact group on the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs during Montreal
MP DECISIONS
Protocol meetings;
ARTICLE 2
2. To recognize the progress made at the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties on the challenges identified
in the mandate of the contact group agreed at the resumed thirty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended
Working Group (listed in annex I to the present decision,) on the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs,
including development of a common understanding on issues related to flexibility of implementation,
second and third stage conversions, guidance to the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, enabling activities for capacity-building and the need for an
exemption for high-ambient-temperature countries, and to endorse the concepts listed in annex II to the
present decision;
3. To recognize that further progress still needs to be made, in particular with respect to other challenges
identified in the contact group mandate, for example conversion costs, technology transfer and intellectual
property rights;
4. To hold in 2016 a series of Open-ended Working Group meetings and other meetings, including an
extraordinary meeting of the parties;
5. To continue consideration at the meetings mentioned in paragraph 4 above of items 6 and 7 of the agenda
for the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/Ozl.Pro. 27/1), including the submissions set out in
documents UNEP/OzL.Pro.27/5, UNEP/OzL.Pro.27/6, UNEP/OzL.Pro.27/7 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.27/8).
Annex I
Mandate for a possible contact group on the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs
The Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol at its thirty-fifth meeting held in
Bangkok from 22 to 24 April 2015, agreed that “it would continue to work inter-sessionally in an informal
manner to study the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs, including, inter alia, the related challenges set out
in annex II to the [report of the thirty-fifth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group], with a view to the
establishment of a contact group on the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs at the thirty-sixth meeting of the
Open-ended Working Group” (UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/35/6, para. 128).
The informal meeting was convened on the 12-13 of June in Vienna on the above mentioned basis.
The parties have recognised in their interventions the success of the Montreal Protocol and its institutions in
phasing out ODSs.
The management of HFCs is applicable to both A5 and non-A5 parties.
Parties agree that nothing should be considered agreed until everything is agreed.
Parties agree that they shall first resolve the challenges mentioned below by generating solutions in a contact
group.
• Relevance and recognition of the special situation of developing countries and the principles under the
Montreal Protocol which have enabled sufficient additional time in the implementation of commitments
by A5 countries,
• Maintain the MLF as the financial mechanism, and to agree that additional financial resources will be
provided by non-A5 parties to offset costs arising out of HFC management for A5 parties if obligations
are agreed to. In this regard, key elements for financial support from the MLF for A5 parties will be
developed by the contact group to provide guidance to the ExCom of the MLF, taking into account the
concerns of parties,
195
• The elements in paragraph 1(a) of decision XXVI/9 including IPR issues in considering the feasibility
and the ways of managing HFCs,
• Flexibility in implementation that enables countries to set their own strategies and set their own priorities
in sectors and technologies,
• Exemption process and a mechanism for periodic review of alternatives including the consideration of
availability or lack of availability of alternatives in all sectors in A5 countries and special needs for high
ambient countries, based on all the elements listed in paragraph 1(a) of decision XXVI/9,
• Relationship with the HCFC phase out,
• Non-party trade provisions, and
MP DECISIONS
• Legal aspects, synergies and other issues related to the UNFCCC in the context of HFC management
ARTICLE 2
under the MP,

Then, the parties will discuss in the contact group the ways of managing HFCs including the amendment
proposals submitted by the parties.
Annex II of the report of the 35th Open-ended Working Group meeting
Challenges to be addressed
• Energy efficiency
• Funding requirements
• Safety of substitutes
• Availability of technologies
• Performance and challenges in high ambient temperatures
• Second and third conversions
• Capacity-building
• Non-party trade provisions
• Synergies with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (legal, financial aspects)
• Relationship with the HCFC phase-out
• Ecological effects (effects on fauna and flora)
• Implications for human health
• Social implications
• National policy implications
• Challenges to the production sector
• Rates of penetration of new alternatives
• Exemptions and ways to address lack of alternatives
• Technology transfer
• Flexibility in implementation
Annex II
Issues raised and discussed in detail as part of the challenges during the contact group
will be further discussed, in a direction consistent with the record of the discussion.
Funding
Maintain the MLF as the financial mechanism and agree that additional financial resources will be provided by
non A5 parties to offset costs arising out of HFC management for A5 parties if obligations are agreed to.
196
Flexibility
A5 parties will have flexibility to prioritize HFCs, define sectors, select technologies/alternatives, elaborate and
implement their strategies to meet agreed HFC obligations, based on their specific needs and national
circumstances, following a country driven approach.
The ExCom shall incorporate the principle in the above mentioned paragraph in relevant guidelines and its
decision making process.
2nd and 3rd conversions
Enterprises that have already converted to HFCs in phasing out CFCs and/or HCFCs will be eligible to receive
funding from the MLF to meet agreed incremental costs in the same manner as enterprises eligible for 1st
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
conversions.
Guidance to the ExCom
It is understood that guidelines and/or methodologies will have to be developed on the following issues related to
HFC control measures, if agreed:
‐ Determination of incremental costs
‐ Calculation of incremental costs
‐ Cost effectiveness thresholds
‐ Energy efficiency and climate impacts of projects
Enabling activities
Enabling activities will be supported by the MLF in any HFC phase down agreement.
‐ Capacity building and training for handling HFC alternatives in the servicing sector, the manufacturing
and production sectors
‐ Institutional Strengthening
‐ Article 4b Licensing
‐ Reporting
‐ Demonstration projects
‐ Developing national strategies
HAT Exemption
The need for an exemption for high ambient temperature countries

It is understood that the remaining challenges will be further discussed.
Decisions on quarantine and pre-shipment
Decision VI/11: Clarification of “quarantine” and “pre-shipment” applications for control of

methyl bromide
1. Recognizing the need for non-Article 5 Parties to have, before 1 January 1995, common definitions of
“quarantine” and “pre-shipment” applications for methyl bromide, for purposes of implementing Article
2H of the Montreal Protocol, and that non-Article 5 Parties have agreed on the following:
(a) Quarantine applications, with respect to methyl bromide, are applications to prevent the
introduction, establishment and/or spread of quarantine pests (including diseases), or to ensure their
official control, where:
197
(i) Official control is that performed by, or authorized by a national plant, animal or
environmental protection, or health authority;
(ii) Quarantine pests are pests of potential importance to the areas endangered thereby and not yet
present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled;
(b) Pre-shipment applications are those treatments applied directly preceding and in relation to export,
to meet the phytosanitary or sanitary requirements of the importing country or existing phytosanitary
or sanitary requirements of the exporting country;
(c) In applying these definitions, non-Article 5 countries are urged to refrain from use of methyl
MP DECISIONS
bromide and to use non-ozone-depleting technologies wherever possible. Where methyl bromide is
ARTICLE 2
used, Parties are urged to minimize emissions and use of methyl bromide through containment and
recovery and recycling methodologies to the extent possible;
2. Acknowledging that Article 5 Parties have agreed to identify the following:
(a) That definitions relating to pre-shipment applications affect Article 5 countries and that new non-
tariff barriers to trade should be avoided;
(b) That the Article 5 countries still need to have more consultations and further approaches to the
quarantine and pre-shipment application definitions related to methyl bromide;
(c) That the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations should play a fundamental role in
the establishment of common definitions concerning quarantine and pre-shipment applications
related to methyl bromide use;
(d) That it is anticipated that the use of methyl bromide by Article 5 countries may increase in the
forthcoming years;
(e) That adequate resources from the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
and other sources are needed to facilitate the transfer of non-ozone-depleting technologies for
quarantine and pre-shipment applications related to methyl bromide to the Article 5 countries;
3. Further recognizing that containment, recovery and recycling methodologies relating to methyl bromide
should be given a wider application among all Parties;
4. To request the Open-ended working group of the Parties at its eleventh and twelfth meetings
(a) To further study the most suitable definition for “quarantine” and “pre-shipment” applications
relating to methyl bromide use, taking into consideration:
(i) The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee report;
(ii) The Methyl Bromide Scientific Assessment Report;
(iii) The FAO guidelines on Pests Risk Analysis; and
(iv) The development of lists of injurious pests;
(b) To consider jointly the definitions issues along with the methyl bromide issues contained in decision
VI/13;
(c) To provide the necessary elements to be included for a decision of the Seventh Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on all the above issues.
198
Decision VII/5: Definition of “quarantine” and “pre-shipment applications”
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/5 that:
(a) “Quarantine applications”, with respect to methyl bromide, are treatments to prevent the introduction,
establishment and/or spread of quarantine pests (including diseases), or to ensure their official control,
where:
(i) Official control is that performed by, or authorized by, a national plant, animal or environmental
protection or health authority;
MP DECISIONS
(ii) Quarantine pests are pests of potential importance to the areas endangered thereby and not yet
ARTICLE 2
present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled;
(b) “Pre-shipment applications” are those treatments applied directly preceding and in relation to export, to
meet the phytosanitary or sanitary requirements of the importing country or existing phytosanitary or
sanitary requirements of the exporting country;
(c) In applying these definitions, all countries are urged to refrain from use of methyl bromide and to use
non-ozone-depleting technologies wherever possible. Where methyl bromide is used, Parties are urged to
minimize emissions and use of methyl bromide through containment and recovery and recycling
methodologies to the extent possible.
Decision X/11: Quarantine and pre-shipment exemption
Noting the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s findings that over 18 per cent of methyl-
bromide use is estimated to have been excluded from control under the quarantine and pre-shipment
exemption, and that this use is increasing in some regions according to official data,
Noting also that the operation of the exemption criteria might lead to unnecessary use of methyl bromide;
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, as part of its ongoing work:
(a) To assess the volumes and uses of methyl bromide under the quarantine and pre-shipment
exemption, including the trend in use since the 1991 base year;
(b) To report on the existing and potential availability of alternative substances and technologies,
identifying those applications where alternative treatments do not currently exist, and also on the
availability and economic viability of recovery, containment and recycling technologies;
(c) To report on the operation of quarantine and pre-shipment exemptions as set out in decision VII/5,
including the scope of the pre-shipment definition;
(d) To report on existing and potential options that individual Parties might consider to reduce the use
and emissions of methyl bromide from its application under the quarantine and pre-shipment
exemption and to elaborate further on their recommendations in previous reports, and taking into
account the special circumstances of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Protocol;
(e) To review and report on the amendment by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) to
its quarantine and non-quarantine pests definitions, and the FAO/IPPC structure relative to the use
of pesticides for regulated non-quarantine pests, to help determine whether clarification of the
definitions of quarantine and pre-shipment, taking into account these FAO/IPPC usages, would help
encourage consistency in the quarantine and pre-shipment definitions;
199
(f) To submit its findings to the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol at
its first meeting in 1999;
2. To request the Open-ended Working Group, in the light of the report of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, to make any appropriate recommendations for consideration by the Eleventh Meeting
of the Parties;
3. To request the Parties to submit to the Secretariat by 31 December 1999 a list of regulations that mandate
the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment treatments;
4. To remind the Parties of the need to report on the volumes of methyl bromide consumed under the
MP DECISIONS
quarantine and pre-shipment exemption as set out in decision IX/28.

ARTICLE 2
Decision XI/12: Definition of pre-shipment applications of methyl bromide
The Eleventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XI/12 that pre-shipment applications are those non-
quarantine applications applied within 21 days prior to export to meet the official requirements of the importing
country or existing official requirements of the exporting country. Official requirements are those which are
performed by, or authorized by, a national plant, animal, environmental, health or stored product authority.
Decision XI/13: Quarantine and pre-shipment
1. To note that, while the reliability of the survey data was noted by the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel to be insufficient to draw firm conclusions, the Panel’s April 1999 report estimates that
over 22 per cent of the methyl bromide use is excluded from control under the quarantine and
pre-shipment exemption, and that this use is increasing in some countries;
2. To note that the Science Assessment Panel revised the ODP of methyl bromide to 0.4 in its 1998 report;
3. To note that, under an amendment adopted by the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties, each Party shall
provide the Secretariat with statistical data on the annual amount of the controlled substance listed in
Annex E used for quarantine and pre-shipment applications.
4. To request that the 2003 report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel:
(a) Evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of alternative treatments and procedures that can
replace methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment;
(b) Estimate the volume of methyl bromide that would be replaced by the implementation of technically
and economically feasible alternatives for quarantine and pre-shipment, reported by commodity
and/or application;
5. To request the Parties to review their national plant, animal, environmental, health and stored product
regulations with a view to removing the requirement for the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and
pre-shipment where technically and economically feasible alternatives exist;
6. To urge the Parties to implement procedures (using a form shown in the Panel’s April 1999 report, if
necessary) to monitor the uses of methyl bromide by commodity and quantity for quarantine and pre-
shipment uses in order:
(a) To target the efficient use of resources for undertaking research to develop and implement
technically and economically feasible alternatives;
(b) To encourage early identification of technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl
bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment where such alternatives exist;
200
7. To encourage the use of methyl bromide recovery and recycling technology (where technically and
economically feasible) to reduce emissions of methyl bromide, until alternatives to methyl bromide for
quarantine and pre-shipment uses are available.
Decision XVI/10: Reporting of information relating to quarantine and pre-shipment uses of

methyl bromide
Recalling the tasks assigned to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel under decision XI/13
paragraphs 4 (a) and (b) regarding quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Recognizing that in order to complete both of these tasks, the Panel will require better data on the nature of each
Party’s quarantine and pre-shipment uses and on the availability in each Party of technically and economically
feasible alternatives to methyl bromide for these uses,
Noting the advice of some Parties that they would require additional time in order to provide useful and robust
data to inform the Panel’s work on this issue, particularly on the availability of technically and economically
feasible alternatives in their jurisdictions,
Desiring that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s implementation of decision XI/13, paragraph 4,
should nevertheless take place in as timely and reasonable a manner as possible,
Noting with appreciation that some Parties have already submitted partial data to inform the Panel’s work on this
issue,
Noting that, given the nature of quarantine and pre-shipment applications, quarantine and pre-shipment uses of
methyl bromide and its alternatives can vary considerably from year to year,
Noting that the introduction of standard 15 of the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, of March
2002, of the International Plant Protection Convention of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, may create a growing demand for the quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide, despite the
availability of heat treatment as a non-methyl bromide option in the standard;
Noting the current workload of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee and its request at the twenty-
fourth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group for additional expertise in some quarantine and pre-shipment
applications,
Noting that quarantine and pre-shipment treatments, according to decisions VII/5 and XI/12, are authorized or
performed by national plant, animal, health or stored product authorities,
1. To request the Panel to establish a task force, with the assistance of the Parties in identifying suitably
qualified members, to prepare the report requested by the Parties under decision XI/13 paragraph 4;
2. To request Parties that have not yet submitted data to the Panel on this issue to provide best available data
to the task force before 31 March 2005, identifying as available all known uses of methyl bromide for
quarantine and pre-shipment, by commodity and application;
3. In responding to the request under paragraph 2, to request the Parties to use best available data for the
year 2002 or data considered by the Party to be representative of a calendar year period;
4. To request the task force to report the data submitted by the Parties under paragraphs 2 and 3, or
previously submitted by other Parties in response to the 14 April 2004 methyl bromide quarantine and
pre-shipment survey, by 31 May 2005, for the information of the Open-ended Working Group at its
twenty-fifth session;
5. Also to request the task force, in reporting pursuant to paragraph 4, to present the data in a written report
in a format aggregated by commodity and application so as to provide a global use pattern overview, and
201
to include available information on potential alternatives for those uses identified by the Parties’
submitted data;
6. To request the Parties to provide information to the task force, as available and based on best available
data, on the availability and technical and economic feasibility of applying in their national circumstances
the alternatives identified in paragraph 5, focusing in particular on the Parties’ own uses, for the calendar
year period reported under paragraphs 2 and 3, by 30 November 2005, constituting either:
(a) More than 10 per cent of their own total annual methyl bromide consumption for quarantine and
pre-shipment consumption; or
MP DECISIONS
(b) In the absence of uses over 10 per cent, which constitute their five highest volume uses; or
ARTICLE 2
(c) Where data is available to the Party, all their known uses;
7. To request the Panel, on the basis of information contained in paragraph 6, to report to the Parties in
accordance with decision XI/13, paragraph 4, by 31 May 2006.
Decision XVI/11: Coordination among United Nations bodies on quarantine and pre-shipment
uses
Bearing in mind that, under standard 15 of the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, of March
2002, of the International Plant Protection Convention of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, guidelines were issued regulating wood packaging materials in international trade, which approved heat
treatments and fumigation by methyl bromide for wood packaging to reduce the risk of the introduction and/or
spread of quarantine pest associated with wood packaging used in trade,
Understanding that these guidelines are intended to address quarantine and pre-shipment applications,
Considering that coordination among United Nations bodies is essential for the attainment of their common
goals,
Taking into account that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is conducting assessments on methyl
bromide alternatives on quarantine and pre-shipment uses,
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat to make contact with the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection
Convention of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, stressing the commitment by
Parties to the Montreal Protocol to the reduction of methyl bromide with specific reference to standard 15
of the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures, and to exchange information with a view to
encouraging alternatives to methyl bromide treatment of wood packaging material stipulated by that
organization as a phytosanitary measure;
2. To request the Ozone Secretariat to report thereon to the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties;
3. To urge the Parties to consider, in the context of standard 15 of the International Standards for
Phytosanitary Measures, the use, as a priority and to the greatest possible extent, when economically
feasible and when the country concerned has the required facilities of alternatives such as heat treatment
or alternative packaging materials, instead of methyl bromide fumigation;
4. To encourage the importing Parties to consider accepting wood packaging treated with alternative
methods to methyl bromide, in accordance with standard 15.
202
Decision XVII/15: Coordination between the Ozone Secretariat and the Secretariat of the
International Plant Protection Convention
Recalling decision XVI/11, on coordination among United Nations bodies on quarantine and pre-shipment uses,
Acknowledging the efforts made by the Ozone Secretariat to make contact and maintain coordination with the
Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention regarding reduction in the use of methyl bromide,
with specific reference to standard 15 of the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures,
MP DECISIONS
Bearing in mind that the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures of the International Plant Protection
ARTICLE 2
Convention agreed to submit to the Standards Committee for expedited review proposals for amending the
March 2002 standard 15, so as to increase the duration of exposure to methyl bromide during fumigation and
increase the minimum required gas concentrations at various stages of the fumigation to ensure its efficacy,
which are expected to be considered for adoption by the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures in
2006,
Stressing the importance of managing and, when economically and technically feasible, replacing quarantine and
pre-shipment applications of methyl bromide,
Taking into account the risk to the ozone layer of increasing methyl bromide emissions through quarantine and
pre-shipment applications,
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat to further liaise with the secretariat of the International Plant Protection
Convention regarding the application of standard 15 of the International Standards for Phytosanitary
Measures;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide any information collected by the
Quarantine and Pre-shipment Task Force pursuant to decision XVI/10 to the relevant bodies of the
International Plant Protection Convention.
Decision XVIII/14: Montreal Protocol/International Plant Protection Convention cooperation on

the use of alternatives to methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment
Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Quarantine
and Pre-Shipment Task Force,
Mindful that in accordance with decisions VII/5 and XI/12 of the Meeting of the Parties quarantine and pre-
shipment treatments are authorized or performed by national plant, animal, health or stored product authorities,
Noting that by its amendment to Article 7, paragraph 3, of the Montreal Protocol, the Eleventh Meeting of the
Parties required each Party to submit information to the Secretariat on the amount of methyl bromide used
annually for quarantine and pre-shipment applications,
Acknowledging that the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures adopts international standards for phytosanitary
measures under the International Plant Protection Convention, which is an international treaty that aims to secure
action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests affecting plants and plant products and to promote
appropriate measures for their control,
Taking into account that quarantine and pre-shipment applications of methyl bromide were originally conceived
to protect natural ecosystems and agriculture from the accidental introduction and spread of such pests, including
invasive alien species, while at the same time allowing trade,
Mindful that in decision XVII/15 the Parties request the Ozone Secretariat to liaise further with the Secretariat of
the International Plant Protection Convention, in consideration of the risk of depletion of the ozone layer,
203
Recognizing the need to develop common solutions that minimize the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and
pre-shipment applications in a manner that is satisfactory for the ozone layer and also in terms of phytosanitary
protection,
1. To welcome proposals by the Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine of the International Plant Protection
Convention for closer cooperation between the International Plant Protection Convention and the
Montreal Protocol technical bodies and to encourage the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures to
consider approval of the recommendations from the Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine on cooperation
with the Protocol;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to cooperate with the technical bodies of the
MP DECISIONS
International Plant Protection Convention with a view to:

ARTICLE 2
(a) Ensuring that potentially duplicative activities are coordinated where practical and that technical
information is shared and jointly developed as appropriate;
(b) Identifying jointly technical and economic opportunities and constraints faced by countries in the
development and adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment
applications;
(c) Allowing the Quarantine and Pre-shipment Task Force to gather quantitative and to the extent
possible comprehensive information about the use of methyl bromide in quarantine and pre-
shipment activities by combining relevant data sets available to each respective technical body;
(d) Identifying jointly existing national plant, animal, environmental health and stored product
regulations that require or authorize the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment
applications;
(e) Providing practical technical guidance on technologies, systems and arrangements aimed at
minimizing emissions from methyl bromide fumigations to national plant protection organizations,
as is urged in decision XI/13;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report on the results of its contacts and
work described in paragraph 2 above in time for the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working
Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to continue liaising with the International Plant Protection Convention
secretariat as appropriate in line with decision XVII/15, to build on interactions already developed, and to
report comprehensively to the Parties on secretariat-level cooperation and joint activities;
5. To request the Secretariat to provide factual information on the definitions of quarantine and pre-
shipment under the Protocol and the International Plant Protection Convention;
6. To encourage national level officials working on Montreal Protocol and International Plant Protection
Convention issues to cooperate more closely to ensure that the objectives of both agreements are being
met when domestic actions are undertaken in relation to methyl bromide use for quarantine and pre-
shipment purposes and in the lead-up to future decision-making by Parties in both multilateral
agreements.
Decision XX/6: Actions by Parties to reduce methyl bromide use for quarantine and
pre-shipment purposes and related emissions
Recognizing that methyl bromide use for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes is an important remaining use of
an ozone-depleting substance that is not controlled pursuant to paragraph 6 of Article 2H of the Montreal
Protocol and that the 2006 assessment report of the Scientific Assessment Panel indicated that “emissions
associated with continued or expanded exemptions, QPS … may also delay recovery [of the ozone layer]”,
204
Recalling that Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol requires Parties to report on the annual amount of methyl
bromide used for quarantine and pre-shipment applications and that decision XI/13 urges Parties to implement
procedures to monitor the uses of methyl bromide by commodity and quantity for quarantine and pre-shipment,
Recalling also decision VII/5 urging Parties to refrain from using methyl bromide and to use non-ozone
depleting technologies wherever possible and decision XI/13 encouraging Parties to use recovery and recycling
technologies where technically and economically feasible until alternatives are available,
Reaffirming the importance of managing and, when economically and technically feasible, replacing quarantine
and pre-shipment applications of methyl bromide, as stated in the preamble to decision XVII/15,
MP DECISIONS
Stressing that methyl bromide is a potent ozone-depleting substance and that it and many of its alternatives are
ARTICLE 2
hazardous substances that have caused serious human health impacts, notably on workers in ports and
warehouses in some Parties,
Recognizing that many Parties have relied on methyl bromide for trade and the conservation of biodiversity and
will continue to do so until alternatives become available and accepted for all quarantine and pre-shipment uses,
Acknowledging the efforts made by Parties to phase out or reduce the use and emissions of methyl bromide for
quarantine and pre-shipment purposes whether through adoption of alternatives or the use of recapture
technologies,
Acknowledging with appreciation the joint efforts of the Ozone Secretariat and the International Plant Protection
Convention in reviewing alternatives to methyl bromide for phytosanitary purposes, particularly under ISPM-15,
and the Convention’s recommendation encouraging Parties to develop and implement strategies to replace
and/or reduce methyl bromide use for phytosanitary applications,
Mindful that the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes is still increasing in some
regions of the world,
Recognizing current data gaps and the need for better information to monitor and analyse trends in quarantine
and pre-shipment use and further to identify opportunities for reducing global amounts of methyl bromide
required for quarantine and pre-shipment applications under the Montreal Protocol,
1. To urge those Parties that have not yet done so to report data on the use of methyl bromide for quarantine
and pre-shipment applications, as required under paragraph 3 of Article 7, by April 2009 and to report
such data in accordance with existing Protocol requirements and decisions annually thereafter;
2. To request the Ozone Secretariat:
(a) To update the definition of pre-shipment in paragraph 5.6 of the Instructions/Guidelines for data
reporting to reflect decision XI/12;
(b) To post on its website, production and consumption data reported by the Parties under paragraph 3
of Article 7 for methyl bromide used for quarantine and pre-shipment applications;
3. To request the Implementation Committee to consider the reporting of methyl bromide used for
quarantine and pre-shipment applications under paragraph 3 of Article 7, in accordance with the Non-
Compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol;
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in consultation with the International Plant
Protection Convention secretariat, to review all relevant, currently available information on the use of
methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment applications and related emissions, to assess trends in
the major uses, available alternatives and other mitigation options, and barriers to the adoption of
alternatives or determine what additional information or action may be required to meet those objectives;
the assessment should consider:
205
(a) A description of the majority of the volumes of methyl bromide used for quarantine and pre-
shipment applications, by the major uses and target pests;
(b) The technical and economic availability of alternative substances and technologies for the main
methyl bromide uses, by volume, and of technologies for methyl bromide recovery, containment and
recycling;
(c) Quarantine and pre-shipment applications for which no alternatives are available to date and an
assessment of why alternatives are not technically or economically feasible or cannot be adopted;
(d) Illustrative examples of regulations or other relevant measures that directly affect the use of methyl
bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment treatment (including information requested in decision
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
X/11);
(e) Other barriers preventing the adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide;
(f) Projects demonstrating technically and economically feasible alternatives, including technologies
for recapture and destruction of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment applications;
5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to present a draft report based on the
analysis of the available information to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-ninth meeting,
indicating areas where the information is not sufficient, explaining, where appropriate, why the data were
inadequate and presenting a practical proposal for how best to gather the information required for a
satisfactory analysis;
6. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to present a final report highlighting areas
where sufficient information indicates opportunities for reductions in methyl bromide use or emissions
for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes, including a list of available methyl bromide recapture
technologies for consideration by the Parties and, where there is insufficient information, a final proposal
for further data gathering for the consideration of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties;
7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in accordance with its terms of reference, to
list categories of use it has identified that have been classified as quarantine and pre-shipment use by
some Parties but not by others by the twenty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and that
those Parties are requested to provide the information on the rationale for doing so to the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel in time for inclusion in its final report to the Twenty-First Meeting of the
Parties
8. To request the Ozone Secretariat, in cooperation with the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,
the International Plant Protection Convention secretariat and other relevant bodies, to organize in the
margins of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties a workshop to discuss the report referred to in
paragraph 4 of the present decision and other relevant inputs with a view to determining possible further
actions;
9. To request the Ozone Secretariat to strengthen cooperation and coordination with the International Plant
Protection Convention secretariat in accordance with decisions XVII/15 and XVIII/14;
10. To encourage Parties in accordance with the recommendations of the third meeting of the Commission on
Phytosanitary Measures under the International Plant Protection Convention to put in place a national
strategy that describes actions that will help them to reduce the use of methyl bromide for phytosanitary
measures and/or reduce emissions of methyl bromide and make such strategies available to other Parties
through the Ozone Secretariat, where possible before the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties; the strategy
may include the following areas for action:
(a) Replacing methyl bromide use;
(b) Reducing methyl bromide use;
(c) Physically reducing methyl bromide emissions;
206
(d) Accurately recording methyl bromide use for phytosanitary measures.
Decision XXI/10: Quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide
Recognizing that methyl bromide use for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes is identified in the 2006
assessment report of the Scientific Assessment Panel as a remaining uncontrolled use of ozone-depleting
substances of which the emissions may delay recovery of the ozone layer,
Mindful of the Scientific Assessment report scenarios which calculated that the integrated total chlorine and
MP DECISIONS
bromine in the atmosphere from 2007 to 2050 (equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine, EESC) would be
ARTICLE 2
reduced by 3.2% if all quarantine and pre-shipment emissions were eliminated by 2015,
Mindful that the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes is still increasing in some
regions,
Acknowledging the efforts made by Parties to phase out or reduce the use and emissions of methyl bromide for
quarantine and pre-shipment purposes,
Noting that 22 non-Article 5 Parties and 54 Article 5 Parties have reported data on current quarantine and pre-
shipment consumption, that 31 other Parties which used quarantine and pre-shipment in the past have reduced
their quarantine and pre-shipment consumption to zero, and that 14 additional Parties will cease next year and
that a further 27 Parties are scheduled to cease consumption by 1 January 2010;
Noting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s Task Force [Table 9-1 (p.138) of the QPS Task
Force report of October 2009] concluded that there are technically feasible alternatives which may replace a
large proportion of the quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide, especially in sawn timber, wood
packaging material (ISPM 15), grains and similar foodstuffs, pre-plant soils use and logs;
Aware that, particularly for compliance with ISPM 15, there are more than 6,000 certified heat treatment
facilities deployed in many countries, and that not-in-kind alternatives (such as plastic pallets or cardboard
pallets) are available worldwide, including in many Article 5 countries, and do not require any treatment under
ISPM 15; also noting that the ISPM 15 standard encourages national plant protection organisations (NPPOs) to
promote the use of alternative treatments approved in that standard.
Further noting that under the International Plant Protection Convention alternative treatments are currently
under review.
Noting the importance of monitoring quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide and their reporting
under Article 7 in order to assess the contribution of quarantine and pre-shipment uses to methyl bromide
emissions into the atmosphere.
Aware that several Parties have succeeded in reducing quarantine and pre-shipment consumption by adopting
policy measures such as promoting the adoption of alternatives, reviewing regulatory requirements, allowing
alternative options, adopting ‘polluter pays’ taxes on methyl bromide imports, and/or limiting quarantine and
pre-shipment consumption;
Noting that methyl bromide use and emissions can also be reduced by technical improvements in fumigation
practices , such as using gas-tight structures, determining minimum effective methyl bromide doses, monitoring
during fumigation to minimise re-dosing, using recovery equipment, and treating wood packing materials prior
to loading containers rather than treating entire loaded containers;
1. To remind Parties of their obligations to report annual data on the consumption of methyl bromide for
quarantine and pre-shipment under Article 7 and to establish and implement a system for licensing trade
in methyl bromide, including quarantine and pre-shipment, under Article 4B;
207
2 To invite Parties to collect data on quarantine and pre-shipment according to Decision XI/13, and to
consider using the format provided in the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s report of April
1999;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee, in consultation with other relevant experts and the IPPC Secretariat to provide a report to be
considered by the 30th meeting of the Open-ended Working Group covering the following:
(1) A review of available information on the technical and economical feasibility of alternatives, and the
estimated availability, for the following categories of quarantine and pre-shipment uses:
MP DECISIONS
a. sawn timber and wood packaging material (ISPM 15);

ARTICLE 2
b. grains and similar foodstuffs;
c. pre-plant soils use;
d. logs;
(2) The current availability and market penetration rate of quarantine and pre-shipment alternatives to
the uses listed in paragraph 3(1) above, and their relation with regulatory requirements and other
drivers for the implementation of alternatives;
(3) An update of table 9.1 of the 2009 Task Force report to include economic aspects, and to take
account of the information compiled under this paragraph, distinguishing between Article 5 and non
Article 5 parties and between quarantine and pre-shipment uses separately;
(4) A description of a draft methodology, including assumptions, limitations, objective parameters, the
variations within and between countries and how to take account of them, that the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel would use, if requested by the Parties, for the assessment of the
technical and economical feasibility of alternatives, of the impact of their implementation and of the
impacts of restricting the quantities of methyl bromide production and consumption for quarantine
and pre-shipment uses;
4. To encourage Parties to apply best-practice measures to reduce methyl bromide quarantine and pre-
shipment use and emissions, that may include the review of required use dosages, gas tightness controls,
monitoring during fumigation and other measures to minimize methyl bromide dosages, and, in
applications where alternatives are not yet available, the recovery and possible reuse of methyl bromide,
and to review the methyl bromide quarantine and pre-shipment requirements for possibilities of
introducing alternative mitigation measures whenever possible;
5. To encourage Parties to consider adopting, where possible within their national policy framework,
incentives to promote the transition to alternatives such as deposit/rebate schemes or other financial
measures;
6. To encourage Parties or regions to use the October 2009 Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
quarantine and pre-shipment task force report to develop documents that summarise information on
technical options to reduce emissions, and on adopted technologies that have replaced methyl bromide
quarantine and pre-shipment applications, the reductions achieved, the investments needed, the operating
costs, and the funding strategies;
7. To encourage Parties to implement the recommendations of the third meeting of the Commission of the
Phytosanitary Measures under the IPPC, also referred to in Decision XX/6.
208
Decision XXIII/5: Quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide
Recognizing the value of developing a strategic view on the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-
shipment purposes and the importance of enhancing the data available for that purpose,
Mindful that consistent reporting on methyl bromide consumption for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes
would facilitate monitoring and review of quarantine and pre-shipment consumption and uses,
Recalling decision XI/13, and in particular its paragraph 3, requiring each party to provide the Secretariat with
MP DECISIONS
statistical data on the amount of methyl bromide used annually for quarantine and pre-shipment applications,
ARTICLE 2
Recalling also the recommendation of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures of the International Plant
Protection Convention on the replacement or reduction of the use of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary measure
[CPM-3 (2008) Report, Appendix 6], adopted in 2008, and decisions XX/6 and XXI/10, encouraging parties to
the Montreal Protocol to implement that recommendation,
Recalling the definitions of “quarantine” and “pre-shipment” set forth in decisions VII/5 and XI/12 and noting
the importance of applying them consistently,
Recalling that under specification 16 alternatives to methyl bromide use for phytosanitary purposes approved by
national plant protection organizations are to be submitted under the International Plant Protection Convention,
1. To encourage parties to follow the recommendation of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures of the
International Plant Protection Convention that data on current usage of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary
measure should be accurately recorded and collated, including information on the quantities of methyl
bromide used in kilograms, a description of the articles fumigated, where appropriate, whether the use
was on imported or exported commodities and target pests;
2. To invite parties in a position to do so, on a voluntary basis, to submit information to the Ozone
Secretariat by 31 March 2013 on:
(a) The amount of methyl bromide used to comply with phytosanitary requirements of destination
countries;
(b) Phytosanitary requirements for imported commodities that must be met through the use of methyl
bromide and to request the Secretariat to forward the information to the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel;
3. To urge parties to comply with the reporting requirements of Article 7 and to provide data on the amount
of methyl bromide used for quarantine and pre-shipment applications annually and to invite parties in a
position to do so, on a voluntary basis, to supplement such data by reporting to the Secretariat information
on methyl bromide uses recorded and collated pursuant to the recommendation of the Commission on
Phytosanitary Measures;
4. To encourage parties to consider avoiding requiring multiple treatments of consignments with methyl
bromide unless a risk of an infestation with a pest has been identified;
5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide, for consideration by the Open-
ended Working group at its thirty-second meeting, a concise report that:
(a) Summarizes data submitted under article 7 of the Montreal Protocol on a regional basis, providing
analysis of trends in that data;
(b) Provides guidance on procedures and methods for data collection on methyl bromide use for
quarantine and pre-shipment for parties that have not yet established such procedures and methods
or wish to improve existing ones;
209
6. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide, for consideration by the Open-
ended Working group at its thirty-third meeting, a concise report based on the information provided in
accordance with paragraph 2 above;
7. To request the Secretariat to consult the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention on
how to ensure and improve the exchange of information on methyl bromide uses and alternative
treatments between the Convention and Montreal Protocol bodies and on the systems available to
facilitate access to such information by national authorities and private organizations, and to report to the
Open-ended Working group at its thirty-second meeting on the outcome of such consultation and on
cooperation in general between the Convention and the Protocol.
Decision XXIV/15: Reporting of information on quarantine and pre-shipment use of methyl

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
bromide
Recalling the need for improved reporting on methyl bromide consumption for quarantine and pre-shipment
uses,
Recalling also decision XXIII/5, in particular its paragraph 2, in which the Meeting of the Parties invited parties
in a position to do so, on a voluntary basis, to submit information to the Ozone Secretariat by 31 March 2013 on:
(a) The amount of methyl bromide used to comply with phytosanitary requirements of destination countries;
and
(b) Phytosanitary requirements for imported commodities that must be met through the use of methyl
bromide,
Recalling further decision XXIII/5, in particular its paragraph 3, in which the Meeting of the Parties urged
parties to comply with the reporting requirements of Article 7 and to provide data on the amount of methyl
bromide used for quarantine and pre-shipment applications annually and invited parties in a position to do so, on
a voluntary basis, to supplement such data by reporting to the Secretariat information on methyl bromide uses
recorded and collated pursuant to the recommendation of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures,
1. To consider at the thirty-third meeting of the Open-ended Working Group whether to ask the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel to undertake an analysis of trends in Article 7 data on methyl bromide
use for quarantine and pre-shipment, taking into account the information submitted in accordance with
decision XXIII/5 and how to improve the information;
2. To request the Ozone Secretariat to remind parties that they are invited to submit information by 31
March 2013, on a voluntary basis, in accordance with paragraph 2 of decision XXIII/5;
3. To invite parties that have not yet established procedures for data collection on methyl bromide use for
quarantine and pre-shipment or wish to improve existing procedures to consider using the elements
identified as essential by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in section 10.4.4 of its 2012
progress report;
4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to upload to its website the forms that have been provided as examples
in section 10.4.2 of the 2012 progress report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel.
Decisions on critical-use exemptions
Decision VII/29: Assessment of the possible need for and modalities and criteria for a critical
agricultural use exemption for methyl bromide
1. To note that the latest Montreal Protocol Scientific Assessment underscores the need for a phase-out of
methyl bromide because of its significant role in depleting the ozone layer;
210
2. To recognize, however, the concerns regarding the applicability of the existing essential-use criteria and
process for evaluating the use of methyl bromide in the agricultural sector, and the availability of
alternatives for important agricultural uses of this compound;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to examine need for and the modalities
(including the essential-use process) and criteria that could be used to facilitate review, approval and
implementation of requests for critical agricultural use exemptions. In recommending suitable modalities
and criteria, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel may take into consideration:
(a) Whether alternative practices or substitutes exist that are commercially available and efficacious;
MP DECISIONS
(b) The relative costs and benefit of alternative practices and substitutes to allow the Parties to assess
ARTICLE 2
their economic viability, taking into account the scale of application and the individual
circumstances of particular uses;
(c) Whether a Party has demonstrated that all economically feasible actions are being taken to minimize
use and any associated emissions from the approved exemption, and that continued efforts are being
made to evaluate and develop alternatives to the use of methyl bromide for this application;
(d) The feasibility of placing a cap on the total percentage of baseline production and consumption
permitted under an essential use for any particular country; and
(e) A range of alternative decision-making and implementation processes;
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a study of the possible uses of
market-based measures to allow for greater flexibility in implementing the requirements for limitations on
methyl bromide;
5. That the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s analysis should be presented for consideration to
the Open-ended Working Group at its thirteenth meeting to facilitate a decision by the Eighth Meeting of
the Parties.
Decision VIII/16: Critical agricultural uses of methyl bromide
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee pursuant to decision VII/29 of the Seventh Meeting of the
Parties;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to further examine and report to the Ninth
Meeting of the Parties on the different options on the issue of critical use of methyl bromide, as presented
to the thirteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group in the June 1996 TEAP Report.
Decision IX/6: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide
1. To apply the following criteria and procedure in assessing a critical methyl bromide use for the purposes
of control measures in Article 2 of the Protocol:
(a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as “critical” only if the nominating Party determines
that:
(i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use
would result in a significant market disruption; and
211
(ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the
user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the
crops and circumstances of the nomination;
(b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted
only if:
(i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the critical use
and any associated emission of methyl bromide;
(ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of
banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mind the developing countries’ need for
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
methyl bromide;
(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialize and
secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the
circumstances of the particular nomination and the special needs of Article 5 Parties, including
lack of financial and expert resources, institutional capacity, and information. Non-Article 5
Parties must demonstrate that research programmes are in place to develop and deploy
alternatives and substitutes. Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that feasible alternatives shall
be adopted as soon as they are confirmed as suitable to the Party’s specific conditions and/or
that they have applied to the Multilateral Fund or other sources for assistance in identifying,
evaluating, adapting and demonstrating such options;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review nominations and make
recommendations based on the criteria established in paragraphs 1 (a) (ii) and 1 (b) of the present
decision;
3. That the present decision will apply to Parties operating under Article 5 and Parties not so operating only
after the phase-out date applicable to those Parties.
Decision IX/7: Emergency methyl-bromide use
The Ninth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IX/7 to allow a Party, upon notification to the Secretariat, to
use, in response to an emergency event, consumption of quantities not exceeding 20 tonnes of methyl bromide.
The Secretariat and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel will evaluate the use according to the
“critical methyl bromide use” criteria and present this information to the next meeting of the Parties for review
and appropriate guidance on future such emergencies, including whether or not the figure of 20 tonnes is
appropriate.
Decision XIII/11: Procedures for applying for a critical-use exemption for methyl bromide
Noting that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 must cease production and consumption of
methyl bromide for other than quarantine and pre-shipment applications from 1 January 2005, except for
consumption and production that meet the levels agreed by the Parties for critical uses,
Noting the importance of providing the Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 with early guidance
on arrangements for implementing decision IX/6, which provides criteria and procedures for assessing a critical
methyl bromide use,
Noting the need for the Parties to have adequate guidance to enable them to submit nominations for critical-use
exemptions for consideration at the 15th Meeting of the Parties in 2003,
1. To note with appreciation the work of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) in
presenting the information required in order adequately to assess nominations submitted in pursuance of
decision IX/6 for critical-use exemptions and the ongoing work of the Technology and Economic
212
Assessment Panel in preparing a consolidated list of alternatives to methyl bromide that had been
included in past TEAP and MBTOC reports;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a handbook on critical-use
nomination procedures which provides this information, and the schedule for submission which reflects
that currently employed in the essential-use nomination procedure;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to finalize the consolidated list of
alternatives to methyl bromide referred to in paragraph 1 and post it on its Website as soon as possible;
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to finalize the “Handbook on Critical Use
MP DECISIONS
Nominations for Methyl Bromide” by January 2002, and the Secretariat to post this Handbook on its
ARTICLE 2
Website as soon as possible;
5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to engage suitably qualified agricultural
economists to assist it in reviewing critical-use nominations.
Decision XV/54: Categories of assessment to be used by the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel when assessing critical uses of methyl bromide
Recognizing that Parties had difficulty in taking a decision on the appropriate amount of methyl bromide to use
for critical uses,
Mindful that exemptions must comply fully with decision IX/6 and are intended to be limited, temporary
derogations from the phase-out of methyl bromide,
1. To invite Parties with nominations that are currently categorized as “noted” in the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel 2003 supplementary report to submit additional information in support of
their nominations, using the comments by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel/Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee in the October 2003 supplementary report as a guide to the
additional information required. The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee co-chairs will
provide additional guidance to assist Parties concerning the information required if so requested. Parties
are requested to submit additional information to the Ozone Secretariat by 31 January 2004;
2. To request the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to convene a special meeting, which
should be held in sufficient time to allow a report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to
be released to the Parties no later than 14 February 2004;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to evaluate the critical-use nominations for
methyl bromide that are currently categorized as “noted” and recategorize them as “recommended”, “not
recommended” or “unable to assess”.
Decision Ex.I/3: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2005
Reaffirming the obligation to phase out the production and consumption of methyl bromide in accordance with
paragraph 5 of Article 2H by 1 January 2005, subject to the availability of an exemption for uses agreed to be
critical by the Parties,
Recognizing that technically and economically feasible alternatives exist for most uses of methyl bromide,
Noting that those alternatives are not always technically and economically feasible in the circumstances of the
nominations,
Noting also that Article 5 Parties have made substantial progress in the adoption of effective alternatives,
213
Mindful that exemptions must fully comply with decision IX/6, and are intended to be limited, temporary
Mindful also that decision IX/6 permits the production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses only
if it is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide,
Recognizing the desirability of a transparent presentation of data on alternatives to methyl bromide to assist the
Parties to understand better the critical-use volumes and to gauge progress on and impediments to the transition,
Recognizing also that each Party should aim at significantly and progressively decreasing its production and
consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses with the intention of completely phasing out methyl bromide as
MP DECISIONS
soon as technically and economically feasible alternatives are available,

ARTICLE 2
Resolved that each Party should revert to methyl bromide only as a last resort and in the situation when a
technically and economically feasible alternative to methyl bromide which is in use ceases to be available as a
result of de-registration or for other reasons,
Taking into account the recommendation by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel that critical-use
exemptions should not be authorized in cases where technically and economically feasible options are registered,
available locally and used commercially by similarly situated enterprises,
Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee,
1. For the agreed critical uses set forth in annex II A to the report of the First Extraordinary Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook] for each Party, to permit, subject to
the conditions set forth in decision Ex.I/4, the levels of production and consumption set forth in annex II
B to the present report [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook] which are necessary to satisfy critical uses,
with the understanding that additional levels and categories of uses may be approved by the Sixteenth
Meeting of the Parties in accordance with decision IX/6;
2. That a Party with a critical-use exemption level in excess of permitted levels of production and
consumption for critical uses is to make up any such difference between those levels by using quantities
of methyl bromide from stocks that the Party has recognized to be available;
3. That a Party using stocks under paragraph 2 above shall prohibit the use of stocks in the categories set
forth in annex II A to the report of the First Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
[see Section 3.4 in this Handbook] when amounts from stocks combined with allowable production and
consumption for critical uses exceed the total level for that Party set forth in annex II A to the present
report;
4. That Parties should endeavour to allocate the quantities of methyl bromide recommended by the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as listed in annex II A to the report of the First
Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook];
5. That each Party which has an agreed critical use should ensure that the criteria in paragraph 1 of decision
IX/6 are applied when licensing, permitting or authorizing the use of methyl bromide and that such
procedures take into account available stocks. Each Party is requested to report on the implementation of
the present paragraph to the Ozone Secretariat;
6. To take note of the proposal by the United States of America on multi-year exemptions, as reflected in
paragraph 7 of the paper reproduced in annex III to the present report, and to consider, at the Sixteenth
Meeting of the Parties, the elaboration of criteria and a methodology for authorizing multi-year
exemptions;
7. Bearing in mind that Parties should aim at significantly and progressively reducing their production and
consumption of methyl bromide for critical-use exemptions, that a Party may request reconsideration by
the Meeting of the Parties of an approved critical-use exemption in the case of exceptional circumstances,
214
such as unforeseen de-registration of an approved methyl bromide alternative when no other feasible
alternatives are available, or where pest and pathogens build resistance to the alternative, or where the
use-reduction measures on which the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel based its
recommendation as to the level necessary to satisfy critical uses are demonstrated not to be feasible in the
specific circumstances of that Party.
Decision Ex.I/4: Conditions for granting and reporting critical-use exemptions for methyl
bromide
MP DECISIONS
Mindful of the principles set forth in the report by the chair of the informal consultation on methyl bromide held
ARTICLE 2
in Buenos Aires on 4 and 5 March 2004, namely, fairness, certainty and confidence, practicality and flexibility,
and transparency,
Recognizing that technically and economically feasible alternatives exist for most uses of methyl bromide,
Noting that those alternatives are not always technically and economically feasible in the circumstances of
nominations,
Noting that Article 5 and non-Article 5 Parties have made substantial progress in the adoption of effective
alternatives,
Recognizing the desirability of a transparent presentation of data on alternatives to methyl bromide to assist the
Parties to understand better the critical-use volumes and to gauge progress on and impediments to the transition
from methyl bromide,
Resolved that each Party should aim at significantly and progressively decreasing its production and
soon as technically and economically feasible alternatives are available,
Recognizing that Parties should revert to methyl bromide only as a last resort, in the event that a technically and
economically feasible alternative to methyl bromide which is in use ceases to be available as a result of de-
registration or for other reasons,
1. That each Party which has an agreed critical use under the present decision should submit available
information to the Ozone Secretariat before 1 February 2005 on the alternatives available, listed
according to their pre-harvest or post-harvest uses and the possible date of registration, if required, for
each alternative; and on the alternatives which the Parties can disclose to be under development, listed
according to their pre-harvest or post-harvest uses and the likely date of registration, if required and
known, for those alternatives, and that the Ozone Secretariat shall be requested to provide a template for
that information and to post the said information in a database entitled “Methyl Bromide Alternatives” on
its web site;
2. That each Party which submits a nomination for the production and consumption of methyl bromide for
years after 2005 should also submit information listed in paragraph 1 to the Ozone Secretariat to include
in its Methyl Bromide Alternatives database and that any other Party which no longer consumes methyl
bromide should also submit information on alternatives to the Secretariat for inclusion in that database;
3. To request each Party which makes a critical-use nomination after 2005 to submit a national management
strategy for phase-out of critical uses of methyl bromide to the Ozone Secretariat before 1 February 2006.
The management strategy should aim, among other things:
(a) To avoid any increase in methyl bromide consumption except for unforeseen circumstances;
215
(b) To encourage the use of alternatives through the use of expedited procedures, where possible, to
develop, register and deploy technically and economically feasible alternatives;
(c) To provide information, for each current pre-harvest and post-harvest use for which a nomination is
planned, on the potential market penetration of newly deployed alternatives and alternatives which
may be used in the near future, to bring forward the time when it is estimated that methyl bromide
consumption for such uses can be reduced and/or ultimately eliminated;
(d) To promote the implementation of measures which ensure that any emissions of methyl bromide are
minimized;
(e) To show how the management strategy will be implemented to promote the phase-out of uses of
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
methyl bromide as soon as technically and economically feasible alternatives are available, in
particular describing the steps which the Party is taking in regard to subparagraph (b) (iii) of
paragraph 1 of decision IX/6 in respect of research programmes in non-Article 5 Parties and the
adoption of alternatives by Article 5 Parties;
4. To request the Meeting of the Parties to take into account information submitted pursuant to paragraphs 1
and 3 of the present decision when it considers permitting a Party to produce or consume methyl bromide
for critical uses after 2006;
5. To request a Party that has submitted a request for a critical use exemption to consider and implement, if
feasible, Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee recommendations on actions which a Party may take to reduce critical uses of methyl
bromide;
6. To request any Party submitting a critical-use nomination after 2004 to describe in its nomination the
methodology used to determine economic feasibility in the event that economic feasibility is used as a
criterion to justify the requirement for the critical use of methyl bromide, using as a guide the economic
criteria contained in section 4 of annex I to the present report [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook];
7. To request each Party from 1 January 2005 to provide to the Ozone Secretariat a summary of each crop or
post-harvest nomination containing the following information:
(a) Name of the nominating Party;
(b) Descriptive title of the nomination;
(c) Crop name (open field or protected) or post-harvest use;
(d) Quantity of methyl bromide requested in each year;
(e) Reason or reasons why alternatives to methyl bromide are not technically and economically feasible;
8. To request the Ozone Secretariat to post the information submitted pursuant to paragraph 7 above,
categorized according to the year in which it was received, on its web site within 10 days of receiving the
nomination;
(a) To identify options which Parties may consider for preventing potential harmful trade of methyl
bromide stocks to Article 5 Parties as consumption is reduced in non-Article 5 Parties and to publish
its evaluation in 2005 to enable the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties to decide if suitable
mitigating steps are necessary;
(b) To identify factors which Article 5 Parties may wish to take into account in evaluating whether they
should either undertake new accelerated phase-out commitments through the Multilateral Fund for
the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol or seek changes to already agreed accelerated phase-
outs of methyl bromide under the Multilateral Fund;
216
(c) To assess economic infeasibility, based on the methodology submitted by the nominating Party
under paragraph 6 above, in making its recommendations on each critical-use nomination. The
report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should be made with a view to
encouraging nominating Parties to adopt a common approach in assessing the economic feasibility
of alternatives;
(d) To submit a report to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-sixth session on the possible
need for methyl bromide critical uses over the next few years, based on a review of the management
strategies submitted by Parties pursuant to paragraph 3 of the present decision;
(e) To review critical-use nominations on an annual basis and apply the criteria set forth in
decision IX/6 and of other relevant criteria agreed by the Parties;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
(f) To recommend an accounting framework for adoption by the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties which
can be used for reporting quantities of methyl bromide produced, imported and exported by Parties
under the terms of critical-use exemptions, and after the end of 2005 to request each Party which has
been granted a critical-use exemption to submit information together with its nomination using the
agreed format;
(g) To provide, in consultation with interested Parties, a format for a critical-use exemption report,
based on the content of annex I to the present report [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook], for adoption
by the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties, and to request each Party which reapplies for a methyl
bromide critical-use exemption after the end of 2005 to submit a critical-use exemption report in the
agreed format;
(h) To assess, annually where appropriate, any critical-use nomination made after the end of 2006 in the
light of the Methyl Bromide Alternatives database information submitted pursuant to paragraph 1 of
the present decision, and to compare, annually where appropriate, the quantity, in the nomination, of
methyl bromide requested and recommended for each pre-harvest and post-harvest use with the
management strategy submitted by the Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of the present decision;
(i) To report annually on the status of re-registration and review of methyl bromide uses for the
applications reflected in the critical-use exemptions, including any information on health effects and
environmental acceptability;
(j) To report annually on the status of registration of alternatives and substitutes for methyl bromide,
with particular emphasis on possible regulatory actions that will increase or decrease dependence on
methyl bromide;
(k) To modify the handbook on critical-use nominations for methyl bromide to take the present decision
and other relevant information into account, for submission to the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XVI/2: Critical use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2005 and 2006
Cognizant of its duty to assess critical uses of methyl bromide under Article 2H, paragraph 5, of the Montreal
Protocol,
Taking into account the criteria and procedures for the assessment of critical uses of methyl bromide articulated
in decision IX/6,
Noting with great appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee,
Recognizing that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee review nominations for critical-use exemptions pursuant to paragraph 2 of decision IX/6 and that the
Parties assess a critical methyl bromide use for the purposes of control measures in Article 2H of the Protocol,
217
Noting that decision XVI/4 should provide a solid basis for review of critical-use nominations in the future, and
that in the absence of technical and economic justification for a recommendation, particular consideration should
be given to the Party’s nomination,
Bearing in mind, in particular, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the working procedures of the Methyl Bromide Technical
Options Committee relating to the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide, as set out in
annex I to the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook],
1. For the agreed supplemental critical-use categories for 2005, set forth in section IA to the annex to the
present decision [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook] for each Party, to permit, subject to the conditions set
forth in decision Ex.I/4, to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the supplementary levels of
MP DECISIONS
production and consumption for 2005 set forth in section IB to the annex to the present decision [see
ARTICLE 2
Section 3.4 in this Handbook] which are necessary to satisfy critical uses;
2. For the agreed critical-use categories for 2006, set forth in section IIA to the annex to the present decision
[see Section 3.4 in this Handbook] for each Party, to permit, subject to the conditions set forth in decision
Ex. I/4, to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for
2006 set forth in section IIB to the annex to the present decision [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook] which
are necessary to satisfy critical uses, with the understanding that additional levels of production and
consumption and categories of uses may be approved by the Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol in accordance with decision IX/6;
3. That Parties should endeavour to ensure that the quantities of methyl bromide recommended by the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel are allocated as listed in sections IA and IIA of the annex to
the present decision;
4. That each Party which has an agreed critical use should ensure that the criteria in paragraph 1 of decision
IX/6 are applied when licensing, permitting or authorizing critical use of methyl bromide and that such
procedures take into account available stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide. Each Party is
requested to report on the implementation of the present paragraph to the Ozone Secretariat;
5. To approve in the interim, until the Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties referred to in paragraph 9 below
is convened, subject to the conditions set forth in decision Ex. I/4, to the extent that those conditions are
applicable, the portions of the 2006 critical-use nominations set forth in section III of the annex to the
present decision [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook];
6. To ask the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to review:
(a) Those portions of the 2006 critical-use nominations set forth in section III of the annex to the
present decision;
(b) The 2006 critical-use nominations that were identified as “unable to assess” in the October 2004
report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,
on the basis of all relevant information submitted by 24 January 2005, including any supplemental
information submitted by the Parties, and information relating to what is suitable for the crops and
circumstances of the nomination;
7. To request the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to evaluate the nominations referred to in
paragraph 6 of the present decision:
(a) In accordance with the procedures set out in annex I to the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the
Parties subject to modifications necessary to meet the timetable provided in paragraphs 6–9 of the
present decision;
(b) To meet the nominating Party before it completes its deliberations, if so requested by the Party;
218
8. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report its findings to the Parties in the
form of an interim report by 30 April 2005, and in the form of a final report by 15 May 2005;
9. To review the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel prepared pursuant to paragraphs
6–8 of the present decision at an extraordinary Meeting of the Parties held in conjunction with the twenty-
fifth meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group, in order to adopt a decision at the Meeting with respect
to the portions of the 2006 critical-use nominations referred to in paragraph 6 of the present decision,
with the understanding that it shall not give rise to any further financial implications;
10. That the procedure provided for in paragraphs 6–9 of the present decision is exceptional and applies only
in 2005, unless the Parties decide otherwise.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Decision XVI/3: Duration of critical-use nominations of methyl bromide
Mindful that decision Ex.I/4, under paragraph 9 (e), requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
to review critical-use nominations on an annual basis and to apply the criteria set forth in decision IX/6 and of
other relevant criteria agreed by the Parties,
Recognizing that decision Ex.I/3, under paragraph 6, asked the Parties to take note of the proposal by the United
States of America on multi-year exemptions, and to consider the elaboration of criteria and a methodology for
authorizing multi-year exemptions,
1. To agree that the basis for extending the duration of critical-use nominations and exemptions of methyl
bromide to periods greater than one year requires further attention;
2. To elaborate, as far as possible, at the Seventeenth Meeting of Parties a framework for spreading a
critical-use exemption over more than one year and to agree that the following elements, among others,
should be taken into account:
(a) Annual reporting on:
(i) Status of re-registration and review of methyl bromide;
(ii) Status of registration of alternatives and substitutes for methyl bromide;
(iii) Efforts to evaluate, commercialize and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and
substitutes;
(b) Assessment of requests to reconsider approved critical-use exemptions in the case of exceptional
circumstances;
(c) Review of downward trends for different instances;
(d) Assessments of nominations in the light of the alternatives database referred to in paragraph 1 of
decision Ex.I/4, and comparisons with management strategies;
(e) Applicability of existing decisions to methyl bromide critical-use exemptions longer than one year;
(f) Additional conditions applicable to critical-use exemptions longer than one year;
3. To consider the technical justifications for spreading a critical-use exemption over more than one year,
taking into account, among others, the following instances:
(a) Where the use patterns of methyl bromide are not regular on an annual or seasonal basis;
(b) Where, for a specific use, no alternatives or emerging solutions are anticipated for several years;
219
(c) Where a plan of implementation of an alternative stretches over several years;
(d) Where management strategies include a complete time-bound phase-out for a nomination or sector
or use.
Decision XVI/6: Accounting framework
Noting with appreciation the work undertaken by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, pursuant to
decision Ex.I/4, paragraph 9 (f), in developing an accounting framework,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Mindful that after the end of 2005 each Party which has been granted a critical-use exemption is requested to
submit information on the quantities of methyl bromide produced, imported and exported by Parties under the
terms of the critical-use exemptions,
Aware that such information must be submitted with a Party’s nomination using the accounting framework
format,
1. To adopt the accounting framework, as set out in annex II to the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the
Parties [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook];
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to include the accounting framework in the
next version of the Handbook on Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide.
Decision Ex.II/1: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide
The Second Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. Ex.II/1:
Recognizing that technically and economically feasible alternatives exist for most uses of methyl bromide, and
that those alternatives are not always technically and economically feasible in the circumstances of the
nominations,
Mindful that exemptions must fully comply with decision IX/6, including with regard to use minimization and
emissions reduction, and that they are intended to be limited, temporary derogations from the phase-out of
methyl bromide,
Recognizing the value of gas retention or other techniques for minimizing emissions of methyl bromide and
other chemical alternatives, and that such uses can achieve pest and disease control with significant reductions in
dose,
Acknowledging that further information described in decision Ex.I/4 will be submitted by the Parties in 2006,
1. For the agreed critical uses for 2006, set forth in table A of the annex to the present decision [see Section
3.4 in this Handbook], to permit, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and in
decision Ex. I/4, to the extent those conditions are applicable, the supplementary levels of production and
consumption for 2006 set forth in table B of the annex to the present decision [see Section 3.4 in this
Handbook] which are necessary to satisfy critical uses, with the understanding that additional levels and
categories of uses may be approved by the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties in accordance with
decision IX/6;
2. That a Party with a critical-use exemption level in excess of permitted levels of production and
consumption for critical uses is to make up any such difference between those levels by using quantities
of methyl bromide available from existing stocks;
220
3. That each Party which has an agreed critical use shall take into full consideration all quantities of existing
stocks of methyl bromide and that the sum of these quantities shall be reported in 2006 in column G of
the Framework Report, as set out in annex II to the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties [see
Section 3.4 in this Handbook], subject to confidentiality and disclosure clauses of domestic laws and
regulations. Where all or part of the quantities are withheld pursuant to such laws and regulations, the
reasons for withholding the quantities in column G shall be footnoted appropriately;
4. That Parties that have an agreed critical use shall endeavour to license, permit, authorize or allocate the
quantities of methyl bromide recommended by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to the
specific categories of use shown in table A of the annex to the present decision;
MP DECISIONS
5. That each Party which has an agreed critical use renews its commitment to ensure that the criteria in
ARTICLE 2
paragraph 1 of decision IX/6 are applied when licensing, permitting or authorizing the use of methyl
bromide and that such procedures take into account quantities of methyl bromide available from existing
stocks;
6. To request Parties licensing, permitting or authorizing methyl bromide that is used for 2006 critical uses
to ensure, wherever methyl bromide is authorized for critical-use exemptions, the use of emission
minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank
injection and/or other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and
economically feasible.
Decision XVII/9: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2006 and 2007
Noting with appreciation that some Parties have made substantial reductions in the quantities of methyl bromide
authorized, permitted or licensed for 2005 and have significantly reduced the quantities for 2006,
Noting that Parties submitting requests for methyl bromide for 2007 have supported their requests with a
national management strategy,
1. For the agreed critical-use categories for 2006, set forth in table A of the annex to the present decision
[see Section 3.4 in this Handbook] for each Party, to permit, subject to the conditions set forth in the
present decision and decision Ex.I/4 to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of
production and consumption for 2006 set forth in table B of the annex to the present decision [see Section
3.4 in this Handbook] which are necessary to satisfy critical uses;
2. For the agreed critical-use categories for 2007, set forth in table C of the annex to the present decision
present decision and in decision Ex. I/4, the levels of production and consumption for 2007 set forth in
table D of the annex to the present decision [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook] which are necessary to
satisfy critical uses, with the understanding that additional levels of production and consumption and
categories of uses may be approved by the Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in accordance
with decision IX/6;
3. That a Party with a critical use exemption level in excess of permitted levels of production and
consumption for critical uses is to make up any such differences between those levels by using quantities
4. That Parties shall endeavour to license, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of critical-use methyl
bromide as listed in tables A and C of the annex to the present decision;
paragraph 1 of decision IX/6 are applied when licensing, permitting or authorizing critical use of methyl
221
bromide and that such procedures take into account available stocks of banked or recycled methyl
bromide. Each Party is requested to report on the implementation of the present paragraph to the Ozone
Secretariat by 1 February for the years to which this decision applies;
6. That Parties licensing, permitting or authorizing methyl bromide that is used for 2007 critical uses shall
request the use of emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier film
technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques that promote environmental protection,
whenever technically and economically feasible;
7. To request Parties to endeavour to use stocks, where available, to meet any demand for methyl bromide
for the purposes of research and development;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
8. To request the Quarantine and Pre-shipment Task Force of the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel to evaluate whether soil fumigation with methyl bromide to control quarantine pests on living plant
material can in practice control pests to applicable quarantine standards, to evaluate the long-term
effectiveness of pest control several months after fumigation for this purpose and to provide a report in
time for the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;
9. That each Party should ensure that its national management strategy for the phase-out of critical uses of
methyl bromide addresses the aims specified in paragraph 3 of decision Ex.I/4;
10. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee to report for 2005 and annually thereafter, for each agreed critical use category, the amount of
methyl bromide nominated by a Party, the amount of the agreed critical use and either:
(a) The amount licensed, permitted or authorized; or
(b) The amount used.
Decision XVIII/13: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2007 and 2008
Noting with appreciation that some Parties have made substantial reductions in the quantities of methyl bromide
authorized, permitted or licensed for 2006 and have significantly reduced the quantities requested,
Noting that Parties submitting requests for methyl bromide for 2007 have supported their requests with a
management strategy as required under decision Ex.I/4,
1. For the agreed critical-use categories for 2007, set forth in table A of the annex to the present decision
3.4 in this Handbook] which are necessary to satisfy critical uses, in addition to the amounts permitted in
decision XVII/9;
2. For the agreed critical-use categories for 2008 set forth in table C of the annex to the present decision [see
Section 3.4 in this Handbook] for each Party to permit, subject to the conditions set forth in the present
decision and in decision Ex.I/4, to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production
and consumption for 2008 set forth in table D of the annex to the present decision [see Section 3.4 in this
Handbook] which are necessary to satisfy critical uses, with the understanding that additional levels of
production and consumption and categories of uses may be approved by the Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol in accordance with decision IX/6;
222
3. That when assessing supplemental requests for critical use exemptions for 2008 for a specific nomination,
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should take into account the most current information,
including any information on domestic implementation of related 2007 and 2008 critical uses, in
accordance with paragraph 2 of decision IX/6;
bromide as listed in tables A and C of the annex to the present decision [see Section 3.4 in this
MP DECISIONS
Handbook];
ARTICLE 2
bromide and, in particular, the criterion laid down in paragraph 1(b) (ii) of decision IX/6. Each Party is
requested to report on the implementation of the present paragraph to the Ozone Secretariat by 1 February
for the years to which this decision applies;
7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to publish annually in its progress report
beginning in 2007 and prior to each Open-ended Working Group meeting the stocks of methyl bromide
held by each nominating Party as reported in its accounting framework report;
8. That Parties licensing, permitting or authorizing methyl bromide that is used for 2008 critical uses shall
request the use of emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier film
technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques that promote environmental protection,
whenever technically and economically feasible;
9. That each Party should continue to ensure that its national management strategy for the phase-out of
critical uses of methyl bromide addresses the aims specified in paragraph 3 of decision Ex.I/4.
Decision XIX/9: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2008 and 2009
Noting that Parties submitting requests for methyl bromide have supported their requests with management
strategies as requested under decision Ex.I/4,
1. To permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2008 set forth in table A of the annex to the present
decision [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook] for each Party, subject to the conditions set forth in the
decision XVIII/13;
2. To permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2009 set forth in table C of the annex to the present
present decision and in decision Ex.I/4 to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of
production and consumption for 2009 set forth in table D of the annex to the present decision [see Section
3.4 in this Handbook] which are necessary to satisfy critical uses, with the understanding that additional
levels of production and consumption and categories of uses may be approved by the Meeting of the
Parties in accordance with decision IX/6;
223
3 To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to ensure that recent findings with regard to
the adoption rate of alternatives are annually updated and reported to the Parties in its first report of each
year and inform the work of the Panel;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Handbook];
bromide and, in particular, the criterion laid down in paragraph 1 (b) (ii) of decision IX/6. Each Party is
for the years to which this decision applies;
8. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue publishing annually in its
progress report prior to each meeting of the Open-ended Working Group the stocks of methyl bromide
held by each nominating Party as reported in that Party’s accounting framework report;
9. To recognize the continued contribution of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee’s expertise
and to agree that, in accordance with section 4.1 of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s
terms of reference, the Committee should continue to develop its recommendations in a consensus
process that includes full discussion among all available members of the Committee;
10. To note the importance of transparency in the critical-use exemption process and to request the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide to the Open-ended Working Group at its next
meeting a written explanation of its methodology for using its meta-analysis in its work and to disclose to
the Parties in a written explanation any significant changes or deviations it intends to make to that
methodology before it undertakes any such change or deviation;
11. That Parties licensing, permitting or authorizing methyl bromide for critical uses shall request the use of
emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep
shank injection and/or other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and
12 . That each Party should continue to ensure that its national management strategy for the phase-out of
critical uses of methyl bromide addresses the aims specified in paragraph 3 of decision Ex.I/4.
Decision XX/5: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2009 and 2010
Noting that Parties submitting requests for methyl bromide have supported their requests with management
strategies as requested under decision Ex.I/4, and that they should periodically provide updated information,
224
decision XIX/9;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to ensure that recent findings with regard to
the adoption rate of alternatives are annually updated and reported to the Parties in its first report of each
year and inform the work of the Panel;
Handbook];
bromide and, in particular, the criterion laid down in paragraph 1 (b) (ii) of decision IX/6. Each Party is
for the years to which the present decision applies;
8. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue publishing annually in its
progress report prior to each meeting of the Open-ended Working Group the stocks of methyl bromide
held by each nominating Party as reported in that Party’s accounting framework report;
terms of reference, the Committee should ensure that it develops its recommendations in a consensus
process that includes full discussion among all available members of the Committee and should ensure
that members with relevant expertise are involved in developing its recommendations;
10. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to ensure that the critical-use
recommendations reported in its annual progress report clearly set out the reasons for recommendations
and that, where requests are received from Parties for further information, the Methyl Bromide Technical
Options Committee should provide a response within four weeks of submission of such a request;
11. That Parties licensing, permitting or authorizing methyl bromide for critical uses shall request the use of
emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep
shank injection and/or other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and
12. That each Party should continue to ensure that its national management strategy for the phase-out of
critical uses of methyl bromide addresses the aims specified in paragraph 3 of decision Ex.I/4, and that
225
each Party should periodically update or provide supplements to its national management strategy to
provide new information on actions, such as identifying alternatives or regulatory updates, being
undertaken to make significant progress in reducing critical use nominations, and indicating currently
envisaged progress towards a phase-down;
13. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to ensure that its consideration of
nominations analyse the impact of national, subnational and local regulations and law on the potential use
of methyl bromide alternatives, and include a description of the analysis in the critical use nomination
report.
Decision XXI/11: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2010 and 2011
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Recognizing the significant reductions made in critical use nominations in many Parties,
Recalling paragraph 10 of decision XVII/9,
decision for each Party [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook], subject to the conditions set forth in the
decision XX/5;
decision for each Party [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook], subject to the conditions set forth in the
bromide as listed in tables A and C of the annex to the present decision;
terms of reference, the Committee should ensure that it develops its recommendations in a consensus
process that includes full discussion among all available members of the Committee and should ensure
that members with relevant expertise are involved in developing its recommendations;
5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to ensure that the critical use
recommendations reported in its annual progress report clearly set out the reasons for recommendations
and that, where requests are received from Parties for further information, the Methyl Bromide Technical
Options Committee should provide a response within four weeks of the submission of such a request;
6. That each Party which has an agreed critical use exemption renews its commitment to ensure that the
criteria in paragraph 1 of decision IX/6 are applied when licensing, permitting or authorizing critical use
of methyl bromide and, in particular, the criterion laid down in paragraph 1 (b) (ii) of decision IX/6. Each
Party is requested to report on the implementation of the present paragraph to the Ozone Secretariat by 1
February for the years to which the present decision applies.
226
7. To request all Parties that have nominated a critical use exemption to report data on stocks using the
accounting framework agreed at the 16th Meeting of the Parties and to urge Parties that have not yet
provided such a report to submit the accounting framework prior to the 22nd Meeting of the Parties.
8. When submitting nominations, Parties are requested to submit updates of the reports requested in the
decisions on critical uses including the following:
i. National Management Strategy under decision Ex.I/4(3), if there are significant changes
ii. Methyl bromide alternative database under decision Ex.I/4(2)
MP DECISIONS
iii. Information to enable the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to report on the amount of
ARTICLE 2
critical use categories licensed, permitted, authorised or the amount used
9. The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee is requested to summarise in the table on its
recommendations for each nomination information on adherence with each criterion set out in decision
IX/6(1)(a)(ii) and (b)(i) and (b)(iii) and other relevant decisions of the Parties.
Decision XXII/6: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2011 and 2012
Noting with appreciation the work by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide
Recognizing the significant reductions made in critical-use nominations for methyl bromide in many parties,
Recalling also that all parties that have nominated critical-use exemptions are to report data on stocks using the
accounting framework agreed on by the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties,
Recognizing that the production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if
methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled
methyl bromide,
Recognizing also that parties operating under a critical-use exemption should take into account the extent to
which methyl bromide is available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled
methyl bromide in licensing, permitting or authorizing the production and consumption of methyl bromide for
critical uses,
Stressing that parties should reduce their stocks of methyl bromide retained for employment in critical-use
exemptions to a minimum in as short a time period as possible,
decision [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook] for each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the
decision XXI/11;
227
3. That parties shall endeavour to license, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of methyl bromide for
critical uses as listed in tables A and C of the annex to the present decision;
and to agree that, in accordance with section 4.1 of the terms of reference of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel, the Committee should ensure that it develops its recommendations in a
consensus process that includes full discussion among all available Committee members and should
ensure that members with relevant expertise are involved in developing its recommendations;
5. That each party that has an agreed critical-use exemption shall renew its commitment to ensuring that the
criteria in paragraph 1 of decision IX/6, in particular the criterion laid down in paragraph 1 (b) (ii) of
MP DECISIONS
decision IX/6, are applied in licensing, permitting or authorizing critical uses of methyl bromide, with
ARTICLE 2
each party requested to report on the implementation of the present provision to the Ozone Secretariat by
1 February for the years to which the present decision applies;
6. To urge parties operating under a critical-use exemption to put in place an effective system to discourage
the accumulation of methyl bromide produced under the exemption.
Decision XXIII/4: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2013
Noting with appreciation the work by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide
accounting framework agreed to by the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties,
methyl bromide,
Recognizing also that parties operating under critical-use exemptions should take into account the extent to
critical uses,
critical uses as listed in table A of the annex to the present decision;
and to agree that, in accordance with section 4.1 of the terms of reference of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel, the Committee should ensure that it develops its recommendations in a
228
nominations analyse the impact of national, subnational, and local regulations and law on the potential
use of methyl bromide alternatives, and include a description of the analysis in the critical use nomination
report;
MP DECISIONS
6. To urge parties operating under critical-use exemptions to put in place effective systems to discourage the
ARTICLE 2
accumulation of methyl bromide produced under the exemptions.
Decision XXIV/5: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2014
Noting with appreciation the work of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide
methyl bromide,
critical uses,
Recognizing also that Australia will not seek any further critical-use nominations of methyl bromide for use in
the rice sector and therefore that the approval to use part of its 2014 allocation in 2013 is to be seen as
exceptional and non-recurring,
Noting that soilless systems for strawberry runners are not yet fully economically or technically feasible
throughout Australia and Canada,
Noting also that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee has a “bottom up” approach for calculating
the area concerned by methyl bromide in California in the United States of America and that the regulatory
authorities have a ‘top down’ approach and that these varying approaches give rise to a difference of 150
hectares,
Acknowledging that the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel, and specifically its Methyl Bromide
Technical Options Committee, produce reports that are science based, independent and robust and that all Parties
should strive to respect the results of this work,
decision for each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and in decision Ex.I/4 to
the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for 2014 set forth
in table B of the annex to the present decision, which are necessary to satisfy critical uses, with the
229
understanding that additional levels of production and consumption and categories of use may be
approved by the Meeting of the Parties in accordance with decision IX/6;
2. As part of a final transition out of the rice sector, to approve Australia bringing forward up to 1.187
tonnes of methyl bromide from its critical use exemption to 2013 for fumigating packaged rice, with any
quantity brought forward to 2013 deducted from its allocation in 2014 and for Australia to ensure that this
amount is reported in full transparency to the Ozone Secretariat;
MP DECISIONS
4. To recognize the continued contribution of the expertise of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
ARTICLE 2
Committee and to agree that in accordance with section 4.1 of the terms of reference of the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel the Committee should ensure that it develops its recommendations in a
6. To request that Canada and Australia take all reasonable steps to explore further the possibility of
transitioning to technically and economically feasible alternatives, including soilless culture in the case of
strawberry runners and to ensure that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee is fully aware of
these efforts;
7. To request that the United States of America takes all reasonable steps to explore further the possibility of
transitioning to technically and economically feasible alternatives in the case of strawberry fruits and to
ensure that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee is fully aware of these efforts;
8 To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to ensure that its consideration of
nominations analyse the impact of national, subnational and local regulations and law on the potential use
of methyl bromide alternatives and to include a description of the analysis in the critical use nomination
report;
9. To urge parties operating under critical-use exemptions to put in place effective systems to discourage the
accumulation of methyl bromide produced under the exemptions.
Annex
Table A
Agreed critical-use categories for 2014
(Metric tonnes)
Australia Strawberry runners (29.760), rice (1.187)

Canada Mills (5.044), strawberry runners (Prince Edward Island) (5.261)
United States of America Commodities (0.740), mills and food processing structures (22.800),
cured pork (3.730), strawberry – field (415.067)
Table B
Permitted levels of production and consumption for 2014
(Metric tonnes)
Australia 30.947
230
Canada 10.305
United States of America 442.337a
a
Minus available stocks.
Decision XXV/4: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2015
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Recognizing the significant reductions made in critical-use nominations for methyl bromide by many parties,
methyl bromide,
critical uses,
Recognizing further that soilless systems for strawberry runners are economically and technically feasible and in
use in many countries, but are not yet economically and technically feasible throughout Australia,
Recognizing that Australia has a research programme to identify technically and economically feasible
alternatives to methyl bromide for strawberry runners,
Recognizing also that technically and economically feasible alternatives, including soilless culture systems, are
currently not available for the production of strawberry runners in Prince Edward Island, Canada,
Recognizing further that Canada will proceed with its assessment of the impact of chloropicrin on groundwater
in Prince Edward Island, Canada,
Acknowledging that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, and specifically its Methyl Bromide
Technical Options Committee, produces reports that are science-based, independent and robust, and that all
parties should strive to respect the results of that work,
1. To request that Australia submit, by the thirty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, the
available results of its research programme to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for its
consideration;
2. To request that Canada submit, by the thirty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, the
available results of its assessment of the impact of chloropicrin on groundwater to the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel for its consideration;
3. To consider approving a critical-use nomination for the strawberry sector in California, United States of
America, in 2014, and to approve sufficient methyl bromide for use in 2016 to enable that sector to
complete its intended transition from critical uses for methyl bromide by the end of 2016;
decision for each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and in decision Ex.I/4 to
231
the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for 2015 set forth
in table B of the annex to the present decision, which are necessary to satisfy critical uses, with the
understanding that additional levels of production and consumption and categories of use may be
approved by the Meeting of the Parties in accordance with decision IX/6;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
nominations analyses the impact of national, subnational and local regulations and law on the potential
use of methyl bromide alternatives and to include a description of the analysis in the critical-use
nomination report.
Annex
Table A
Agreed critical-use categories for 2015
(Metric tonnes)
Australia Strawberry runners 29.760
Canada Strawberry runners (Prince Edward Island)
5.261
United States of America Strawberry field 373.66, cured pork 3.24
Table B
Permitted levels of production and consumption for 2015
(Metric tonnes)
Australia 29.760
Canada 5.261
a
Decision XXVI/6: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2015 and 2016
Recalling further paragraphs 1 and 2 of decision XXV/4, in which the Meeting of the Parties requested that, by
the thirty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, Australia submit the available results of its research
232
programme and Canada submit the available results of its assessment of the impact of chloropicrin on
groundwater to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for its consideration,
methyl bromide,
critical uses,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
Recognizing further that the additional information provided by Argentina at the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the
Parties allowed the co-chairs of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to show how an amount of
methyl bromide would be justified for critical use by Argentina in line with decision IX/6,
1. To permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2015 and 2016 set forth in table A of the annex to the
present decision for each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and in decision
Ex.I/4 to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for
2015 and 2016 set forth in table B of the annex to the present decision, which are necessary to satisfy
critical uses, with the understanding that additional levels of production and consumption and categories
of use may be approved by the Meeting of the Parties in accordance with decision IX/6;
1 February for the years to which the present decision applies.
Table A
Agreed critical-use categories
(Metric tonnes)
2016
Canada Strawberry runners (Prince Edward Island) 5.261
2015
Argentina Strawberry fruit 64.3, green pepper/tomato 70
China Ginger protected 24.0, ginger open field 90.0
Mexico Strawberry nursery 43.539, raspberry nursery 41.418
Table B
Permitted levels of production and consumptiona
(Metric tonnes)
2016
Australia 29.760
Canada 5.261
United States of America 234.78
2015
Argentina 134.3
China 114.0
Mexico 84.957
a
233
Decision XXVII/3: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2016 and 2017
Recognizing the significant reductions in critical-use nominations for methyl bromide by many parties,

MP DECISIONS
Recalling also that all parties that have nominated critical-use exemptions are to report data on stocks of methyl
ARTICLE 2
bromide using the accounting framework agreed to by the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties,
Recalling further paragraph 1 of decision XXV/4, in which the Meeting of the Parties requested that, by the
thirty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, Australia submit the available results of its research
programme,
Noting with appreciation that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of decision XXV/4, Canada submitted the
available results of its assessment of the impact of chloropicrin on groundwater to the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel in August 2015,
methyl bromide,
critical uses,
1. To permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2016 and 2017 set forth in table A of the annex to the
present decision for each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and in decision
Ex.I/4 to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for
2016 and 2017 set forth in table B of the annex to the present decision, which are necessary to satisfy
critical uses, with the understanding that additional levels of production and consumption and categories
of use may be approved by the Meeting of the Parties in accordance with decision IX/6;
1 February for the years to which the present decision applies.
Annex
Table A
Agreed critical-use categories
(Metric tonnes)
2017
2016
Argentina Strawberry fruit 71.25 ; tomato 58
234
China Ginger, protected 21.0 ; ginger, open field 78.75

Mexico Strawberry, nursery 43.539 ; raspberry, nursery 41.418
South Africa Mills 5.462 ; houses 68.6
Table B
Permitted levels of production and consumptiona
(Metric tonnes)
2017
Australia 29.760
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 2
2016
Argentina 129.25
China 99.75
Mexico 84.957
South Africa 74.062
a
Decisions on new substances
Decision IX/24: Control of new substances with ozone-depleting potential
1. That any Party may bring to the attention of the Secretariat the existence of new substances which it
believes have the potential to deplete the ozone layer and have the likelihood of substantial production,
but which are not listed as controlled substances under Article 2 of the Protocol;
2. To request the Secretariat to forward such information forthwith to the Scientific Assessment Panel and
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;
3. To request the Scientific Assessment Panel to carry out an assessment of the ozone-depleting potential of
any such substances of which it is aware either as a result of information provided by Parties, or
otherwise, to pass that information to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as soon as
possible, and to report to the next ordinary Meeting of the Parties;
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report to each ordinary Meeting of the
Parties on any such new substances of which it is aware either as a result of information provided by
Parties, or otherwise, and for which the Scientific Assessment Panel has estimated to have a significant
ozone-depleting potential. The report shall include an evaluation of the extent of use or potential use of
each substance and if necessary the potential alternatives, and shall make recommendations on actions
which the Parties should consider taking;
5. To request Parties to discourage the development and promotion of new substances with a significant
potential to deplete the ozone layer, technologies to use such substances and use of such substances in
various applications.
Decision X/8: New substances with ozone-depleting potential
Recalling that, under the Montreal Protocol, each Party has undertaken to control the global emissions of ozone-
depleting substances with the ultimate objective of their elimination,
Recalling that decision IX/24 requested Parties to discourage the development and promotion of substances with
a significant potential to deplete the ozone layer and provides a procedure for notifying such substances to the
235
Secretariat and their evaluation by the Science Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel,
1. That all Parties should take measures actively to discourage the production and marketing of
bromochloromethane;
2. To encourage Parties, in the light of reports from the Scientific Assessment Panel and the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel, to take measures actively, as appropriate, to discourage the production and
marketing of new ozone-depleting substances;
3. That should new substances be developed and marketed which, following application of decision IX/24,
MP DECISIONS
are agreed by the Parties to pose a significant threat to the ozone layer, the Parties will take appropriate
ARTICLE 2
steps under the Protocol to ensure their control and phase-out;
4. That Parties should report to the Secretariat, as far as possible by 31 December 1999, and as necessary
thereafter, on any new ozone-depleting substances notified and evaluated under the terms of decision
IX/24 being produced or sold in their territories, including the nature of the substances, the quantities
involved, the purposes for which these substances are being marketed or used and, if possible, the names
of the producers and distributors;
5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Science Assessment Panel, taking
into account, as appropriate, assessments carried out under decision IX/24, to collaborate in undertaking
further assessments:
(a) To determine whether substances such as n-propyl bromide, with a very short atmospheric life-time
of less than one month, pose a threat to the ozone layer;
(b) To identify the sources and availability of halon-1202;
and to report back to the Meeting of the Parties as soon as possible, but not later than the Twelfth Meeting
of the Parties;
6. To request the legal drafting group which the Open-ended Working Group may establish to consider and
report back to the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties through the Open-ended Working Group on the options
available under the Montreal Protocol to introduce controls on new ozone-depleting substances.
Decision XI/19: Assessment of new substances
1. To recall that decision X/8 requested Parties that, should new substances be developed and marketed
which, following application of decision IX/24, are agreed by the Parties to pose a significant threat to the
ozone layer, appropriate steps are taken under the Montreal Protocol to ensure their control and phase-
out;
2. To note that many new chemicals are brought into the market by the chemical industry so that criteria for
assessing the potential ODP of these chemicals will be useful;
3. To request the Scientific Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel:
(a) To develop criteria to assess the potential ODP of new chemicals;
(b) To develop a guidance paper on mechanisms to facilitate public-private sector cooperation in the
evaluation of the potential ODP of new chemicals in a manner that satisfies the criteria to be set by
the Panels;
4. To request the Panels to report back to the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties.
236
Decision XI/20: Procedure for new substances
Recalling decisions IX/24 and X/8 on control of new ozone-depleting substances,
Noting that the issue was discussed at the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties,
To continue to give full consideration to ways to expedite the procedure for adding new substances and
their associated control measures to the Protocol and for removing them therefrom.
MP DECISIONS
Decision XIII/5: Procedures for assessing the ozone-depleting potential of new substances that
ARTICLE 2
may be damaging to the ozone layer
Understanding that “new substances” are those believed to deplete the ozone layer and to have the likelihood of
substantial production but not listed as controlled substances under Article 2 of the Protocol,
Mindful of the requests to Parties under decision IX/24 and decision X/8 to report to the Ozone Secretariat new
substances being produced in their territory,
Recalling decision XI/19 on the assessment of new substances, which requests the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel and the Scientific Assessment Panel to develop criteria to assess the potential ODP of a new
substance and to produce a guidance paper on public/private sector partnerships in this assessment,
Understanding the urgency and the benefit of disseminating information on new substances that enables
individual Parties to limit or ban the use of those substances as soon as possible,
Noting the desirability of having a standardized and independent ODP analysis in order to ensure consistent and
reproducible results,
1. To request the Secretariat to keep the list of new substances submitted by Parties pursuant to
decision IX/24 on the UNEP Website up to date and to distribute the current version of the list to all
Parties about six weeks in advance of the meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and the Meeting of
the Parties;
2. To ask the Secretariat to request a Party that has an enterprise producing a listed new substance to request
that enterprise to undertake a preliminary assessment of its ODP following procedures to be developed by
the Scientific Assessment Panel and to submit, if available, toxicological data on the listed new
substance, and further to request the Party to report the outcome of the request to the Secretariat;
3. To call on Parties to encourage their enterprises to conduct the preliminary assessment of its ODP within
one year of the request of the Secretariat and, in cases where the substance is produced in more than one
territory, to request the Secretariat to notify the Parties concerned in order to promote the coordination of
the assessment;
4. To request the Secretariat to notify the Scientific Assessment Panel of the outcome of the preliminary
assessment of the ODP to enable the Panel to review the assessment for each new substance in its annual
report to the Parties and to recommend to the Parties when a more detailed assessment of the ODP of a
listed new substance may be warranted.
Decision XIII/6: Expedited procedures for adding new substances to the Montreal Protocol
Recalling decision XI/20, which requires Parties to give full consideration to ways for expediting the procedure
for adding new substances and their associated control measures to the Protocol,
237
To request the Ozone Secretariat to compile precedents in other Conventions regarding the procedures for
adding new substances and to provide a report at the 22nd Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, in 2002.
Decision XIII/7: n-propyl bromide
Noting the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s report that n-propyl bromide (nPB) is being marketed
aggressively and that nPB use and emissions in 2010 are currently projected to be around 40,000 metric tonnes,
1. To request Parties to inform industry and users about the concerns surrounding the use and emissions of
MP DECISIONS
nPB and the potential threat that these might pose to the ozone layer;
ARTICLE 2
2. To request Parties to urge industry and users to consider limiting the use of nPB to applications where
more economically feasible and environmentally friendly alternatives are not available, and to urge them
also to take care to minimize exposure and emissions during use and disposal;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report annually on nPB use and
emissions.
Decision XVIII/11: Sources of n-propyl bromide emissions, alternatives available and

opportunities for reductions
Noting with appreciation the information presented by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its
Chemicals Technical Options Committee in its May 2006 progress report,
Mindful of the options to include new substances as controlled substances in the Montreal Protocol, and in
particular of decision XIII/7, requesting Parties to urge industry and users to consider limiting the use of n-
propyl bromide to applications for which more economically feasible and environmentally friendly alternatives
are not available,
Desiring to obtain more specific information on use categories and emissions of n-propyl bromide to allow
Parties to consider further steps regarding n-propyl bromide, in the light of available alternatives,
1. To request the Scientific Assessment Panel to update existing information on the ozone depletion
potential of n-propyl bromide, including ozone depleting potential depending on the location of the
emissions and the season in the hemisphere at that location;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue its assessment of global
emissions of n-propyl bromide, as set out in decision XIII/7, paying particular attention to:
(a) Obtaining more complete data on production and uses of n-propyl bromide as well as emissions of
n-propyl bromide from those sources;
(b) Providing further information on the technological and economical availability of alternatives for
the different use categories of n-propyl bromide and information on the toxicity of and regulations
on the substitutes for n-propyl bromide;
(c) Presenting information on the ozone depletion potential of the substances for which n-propyl
bromide is used as a replacement;
3. To request that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel prepare a report on the assessment
referred to in paragraph 1 in time for the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group for
the consideration of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties.
238
Decision XXIV/10: Review by the Scientific Assessment Panel of RC-316c
Recalling decisions IX/24, X/8, XI/19 and XIII/5 of the Meeting of the Parties pertaining to new substances,
Noting that the Scientific Assessment Panel has developed procedures for assessing the ozone-depletion
potential of new substances,
1. To invite parties in a position to do so to provide environmental assessments of RC-316c (1,2-dichloro-

1,2,3,3,4,4-hexafluorocyclobutane, CAS 356-18-3), a chlorofluorocarbon not controlled by the Montreal
MP DECISIONS
Protocol, and any guidance on practices that can reduce intentional releases of the substance;
ARTICLE 2
2. To request the Scientific Assessment Panel to conduct a preliminary assessment of RC-316c and report to
the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-third meeting on the ozone-depletion potential and global-
warming potential of the substance and other factors that the Panel deems relevant.
Decision I/12G: Clarification of terms and definitions: Article 2, paragraph 6
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/12G to agree to the following clarification of Article 2,
paragraph 6 of the Protocol:
(a) paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 2 of the Protocol freeze and then reduce annual production and therefore do
not allow any increase of such production under Article 2, paragraph 6;
(b) since the object and purpose of the Protocol is to significantly reduce the production and use of CFCs and
halons, neither Article 2, paragraph 6 nor any other provision allows an increase in production to be
exported to non-Parties so that the reduction in global consumption is not obtained in accordance with the
object of the Protocol;
(c) only countries that notify the Secretariat that the facilities were under construction or contracted prior to
16 September 1987, provided for in national legislation prior to 1 January 1987 and completed by 31
December 1990 were allowed to operate under Article 2, paragraph 6. .
239
Decisions on non-Parties in compliance with the Protocol
Decision IV/17B: Application to Colombia of paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the amended Montreal

Protocol
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/17B that the exceptions provided for in paragraph 8 of
Article 4 of the 1990 London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol should apply to Colombia, a country not yet
Party to the Protocol, from 1 January 1993 until the date on which the Protocol and its Amendment enter into
force for Colombia, bearing in mind that Colombia is in full compliance with Article 2, Articles 2A to E, and
MP DECISIONS
Article 4 of the Protocol and the amended Protocol and has submitted data to that effect to this Meeting and,
ARTICLE 4
previously, to the Ozone Secretariat, as specified in Article 7 of the amended Protocol.
Decision IV/17C: Application of trade measures under Article 4 to non-Parties to the Protocol
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/17C:
1. recalling that paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Protocol permits a Meeting of the Parties to determine that a
State not party to the Protocol is in full compliance with Articles 2, 2A to 2E and Article 4 of the Protocol
and therefore is not to be subject to the trade controls specified in that Article, to determine provisionally,
pending a final decision at the Fifth Meeting of the Parties, that any State not party to the Protocol which:
(a) has by 31 March 1993 notified the Secretariat that it is in full compliance with Articles 2, 2A to 2E
and Article 4 of the Protocol;
(b) has by 31 March 1993 submitted supporting data to that effect to the Secretariat as specified in
Article 7 of the Protocol;
is in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Protocol and may be exempt, between that time and
the Fifth Meeting of the Parties, from the trade controls in paragraphs 2 and 2 bis of Article 4 of the
Protocol;
2. to request the Secretariat to transmit any such data received to the Implementation Committee and to the
Parties;
3. that a final decision on the position of such States will be taken at the Fifth Meeting of the Parties, taking
account of any comment on the data of these States that the Implementation Committee may make.
Decision V/3: Application of trade measures under Article 4 to non-Parties to the London
Amendment
1. To note the information reported by non-Parties to the Montreal Protocol pursuant to decision IV/17C
(Control of trade with non-Parties) of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties and to request the Secretariat to
inform those States that the trade restrictions under Article 4 are applicable to all non-Parties as per the
provisions of that Article;
2. To note, however, the request by Malta, Jordan, Poland and Turkey to the Meeting of the Parties to agree
an extension for them of decision IV/17 C pending completion of their procedures for ratification of the
London Amendment;
3. To note that these four countries have all submitted data pursuant to decision IV/17 C notifying that in
1992 they were in full compliance with Articles 2, 2A to 2E and 4 of the Montreal Protocol and have
submitted supporting data to that effect as specified in Article 7 of the Protocol;
240
4. To agree to extend, until the Sixth Meeting of the Parties, the exemption of those four countries from the
trade controls in Articles 2, 2A to 2E and 4 of the Montreal Protocol provided that by 31 March 1994 they
submit to the Secretariat, for consideration by the Implementation Committee, data as specified in Article
7 to demonstrate that during 1993 they were in full compliance with the controls in all those Articles.
Such data shall be submitted in accordance with the revised format for reporting of data as adopted by the
Parties in decision V/5;
5. To agree to this exemption on the understanding that any future exemption of this nature would only be
granted in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 8 of Article 4.
Decision VI/4: Application of trade measures under Article 4 to non-Parties to the London
MP DECISIONS
Amendment to the Protocol
ARTICLE 4
1. To note the information reported by Poland and Turkey pursuant to decision V/3 (Application of trade
measures under Article 4 to non-Parties to the London Amendment) of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties
and to note that these two countries have thereby submitted data demonstrating that in 1993 they were in
full compliance with Articles 2, 2A–2E and 4 of the Montreal Protocol and have submitted supporting
data to that effect as specified in Article 7 of the Protocol;
2. To request those countries to submit data on their compliance with the above Articles of the Protocol by
31 March 1995 in order to establish their continued eligibility under Article 4, paragraph 8, to treatment
as Parties during the year 1995–1996;
3. To welcome the fact that both countries intend to ratify or accede to the London Amendment in 1995.
Decision XV/3: Obligations of Parties to the Beijing Amendment under Article 4 of the Montreal
Protocol with respect to hydrochlorofluorocarbons
Affirming that it is operating by consensus,
Reaffirming the obligation to control consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons by the Parties to the amendment
adopted by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol at Copenhagen on 25 November 1992 (the
“Copenhagen Amendment”),
Reaffirming the obligation to control production of hydrochlorofluorocarbons by the Parties to the amendment
adopted by the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol at Beijing on 3 December 1999 (the
“Beijing Amendment”),
Strongly urging all States not yet party to the Copenhagen or Beijing Amendments to ratify, accede to or accept
them as soon as possible,
Recalling that, as of 1 January 2004, the Parties to the Beijing Amendment have accepted obligations under
Article 4, paragraph 1 quin., and paragraph 2 quin., of the Protocol to ban the import and export of the controlled
substances in group 1 of Annex C (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) from any “State not party to this Protocol”,
Noting that Article 4, paragraph 9 of the Protocol provides that “for the purposes of this Article, the term ‘State
not party to this Protocol’ shall include, with respect to a particular controlled substance, a State or regional
economic integration organization that has not agreed to be bound by the control measures in effect for that
substance”,
Noting also that Article 4, paragraph 8 of the Protocol permits Parties to the Beijing Amendment to import and
export hydrochlorofluorocarbons from “any State not party to this Protocol, if that State is determined, by a
Meeting of the Parties, to be in full compliance with Article 2, Articles 2A–2I and this Article, and have
submitted data to that effect as specified in Article 7”,
241
Acknowledging that the meaning of the term “State not party to this Protocol” may be subject to differing
interpretations with respect to hydrochlorofluorocarbons by Parties to the Beijing Amendment, given that control
measures for the consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons were introduced in the Copenhagen Amendment
while control measures for the production of hydrochlorofluorocarbons were introduced in the Beijing
Amendment,
Acknowledging also that, for those Parties operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol no control
measures for the consumption or production of hydrochlorofluorocarbons will be in effect under either the
Copenhagen or Beijing Amendments until 2016,
Desiring to decide in that context on a practice in the application of Article 4, paragraph 9 of the Protocol by
MP DECISIONS
establishing by consensus a single interpretation of the term “State not party to this Protocol”, to be applied by
ARTICLE 4
Parties to the Beijing Amendment for the purpose of trade in hydrochlorofluorocarbons under Article 4 of the
Protocol,
Expecting Parties to the Beijing Amendment to import or export hydrochlorofluorocarbons in ways that do not
result in the importation or exportation of hydrochlorofluorocarbons to any “State not party to this Protocol” as
that term is interpreted herein, recognizing the need to assess the fulfilment of that expectation,
1. That the Parties to the Beijing Amendment will determine their obligations to ban the import and export
of controlled substances in group I of Annex C (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) with respect to States and
regional economic organizations that are not parties to the Beijing Amendment by January 1 2004 in
accordance with the following:
(a) The term “State not party to this Protocol” in Article 4, paragraph 9 does not apply to those States
operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol until January 1, 2016 when, in accordance
with the Copenhagen and Beijing Amendments, hydrochlorofluorocarbon production and
consumption control measures will be in effect for States that operate under Article 5, paragraph 1,
of the Protocol;
(b) The term “State not party to this Protocol” includes all other States and regional economic
integration organizations that have not agreed to be bound by the Copenhagen and Beijing
Amendments;
(c) Recognizing, however, the practical difficulties imposed by the timing associated with the adoption
of the foregoing interpretation of the term “State not party to this Protocol,” paragraph 1 (b) shall
apply unless such a State has by 31 March 2004:
(i) Notified the Secretariat that it intends to ratify, accede or accept the Beijing Amendment as
soon as possible;
(ii) Certified that it is in full compliance with Articles 2, 2A to 2G and Article 4 of the Protocol, as
amended by the Copenhagen Amendment;
` (iii) Submitted data on (i) and (ii) above to the Secretariat, to be updated on 31 March 2005,
in which case that State shall fall outside the definition of “State not party to this Protocol” until the
conclusion of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties;
2. That the Secretariat shall transmit data received under paragraph 1 (c) above to the Implementation
Committee and the Parties;
3. That the Parties shall consider the implementation and operation of the foregoing decision at the
Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties, in particular taking into account any comments on the data submitted by
States by 31 March 2004 under paragraph 1 (c) above that the Implementation Committee may make.
242
Decision XVII/3: Application to Belgium, Poland and Portugal of paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the
Montreal Protocol with respect to the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol
Acknowledging that Belgium, Poland and Portugal have notified the Secretariat, pursuant to decision XV/3, that
their respective ratification processes are under way and that they will do all that is possible to complete those
procedures as expeditiously as possible,
Expressing regret that despite their best efforts, Belgium, Poland and Portugal will not be able to ratify the
Beijing Amendment before the expiry of decision XV/3 on the last day of the Seventeenth Meeting of the
MP DECISIONS
Parties,
ARTICLE 4
1. That on the basis of the data submitted under Article 7 of the Protocol and the review conducted by the
Implementation Committee, Belgium, Poland and Portugal are in full compliance with Articles 2, 2A to
2I and 4 of the Montreal Protocol, including its Beijing Amendment;
2. That the exceptions provided for in paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol shall apply to
Belgium, Poland and Portugal from 17 December 2005;
3. That the determination in paragraph 1 of the present decision and the exceptions referred to in paragraph
2 of the present decision shall expire at the end of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XVII/4: Application to Tajikistan of paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol

with respect to the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol
Acknowledging that Tajikistan has notified the Secretariat, pursuant to decision XV/3, that its ratification process
is under way and that it will do all that is possible to complete that procedure as expeditiously as possible,
Expressing regret that despite its best efforts, Tajikistan will not be able to ratify the Beijing Amendment before
the expiry of decision XV/3 on the last day of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties,
1. That on the basis of the data submitted under Article 7 of the Protocol and the review conducted by the
Implementation Committee, Tajikistan is in full compliance with Articles 2, 2A to 2I and 4 of the
Montreal Protocol, including its Beijing Amendment;
2. That the exceptions provided for in paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol shall apply to
Tajikistan from 17 December 2005;
2 of the present decision shall expire at the end of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XX/9: Application of the Montreal Protocol’s trade provisions to

hydrochlorofluorocarbons
Recalling decision XV/3, which clarifies the definition of States not party to the Montreal Protocol for the
purposes of obligations of Parties to the Copenhagen and Beijing Amendments to the Montreal Protocol in
respect of control measures on hydrochlorofluorocarbons,
Noting decision XIX/6, by which the Parties agreed to accelerate the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons,
including the establishment of the new freeze date of 1 January 2013 for Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5,
243
Acknowledging that the accelerated phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons as determined by decision XIX/6

brings forward control measures for hydrochlorofluorocarbons for Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article
5 of the Protocol from 2016 to 2013,
1. To annul paragraph 1 (a) of decision XV/3, which reads
the term “State not party to this Protocol” in Article 4, paragraph 9 does not apply to those States
operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol until 1 January 2016 when, in accordance with the
Copenhagen and Beijing Amendments, hydrochlorofluorocarbon production and consumption control
measures will be in effect for States that operate under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol;
MP DECISIONS
and replace it with:

ARTICLE 4
the term “State not party to this Protocol” in Article 4, paragraph 9, does not apply to those States
operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol until 1 January 2013 when, in accordance with the
Copenhagen and Beijing Amendments, hydrochlorofluorocarbon production and consumption control
measures will be in effect for States that operate under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol.
Decision XXIV/2: Application to Bahrain, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Chad, Ecuador, Haiti,
Kenya and Nicaragua of paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol with respect to the
Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol
The Twenty-fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXIV/2:
Considering paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol, which reads:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, imports and exports referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 ter of this
Article may be permitted from, or to, any State not party to this Protocol, if that State is determined, by a
meeting of the Parties, to be in full compliance with Article 2, Articles 2A to 2I and this Article, and have
submitted data to that effect as specified in Article 7”,
Acknowledging that Bahrain, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Chad, Ecuador, Haiti, Kenya and Nicaragua have
notified the Secretariat that their ratification processes of the Beijing Amendment are under way and that they
will do all that is possible to complete the procedures as expeditiously as possible,
Expressing regret that despite their best efforts, Bahrain, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Chad, Ecuador, Haiti,
and Kenya will not be able to ratify the Beijing Amendment before the last day of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of
the Parties,
Noting that although the Implementation Committee has not specifically considered the situation of Bahrain,
Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Chad, Ecuador, Haiti, and Kenya in the context of paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the
Montreal Protocol, the report of the Implementation Committee to the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties
indicates that all of those parties are in full compliance with Article 2, Articles 2A to 2I and Article 4 of the
Protocol, including its Beijing Amendment, and have submitted data to that effect as specified in Article 7,
1. That on the basis of the data submitted under Article 7 of the Protocol, Bahrain, Bolivia (Plurinational
State of), Chad, Ecuador, Haiti, Kenya and Nicaragua are in full compliance with Articles 2, Articles 2A
to 2I and Article 4 of the Protocol, including its Beijing Amendment;
2. That the exceptions provided for in paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Protocol shall apply to Bahrain,
Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Chad, Ecuador, Haiti, Kenya and Nicaragua from 1 January 2013;
2 of the present decision shall expire at the end of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties;
4. That the term “State not party to this Protocol” in Article 4, paragraph 9 applies to those States operating
under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol that have not agreed to be bound by Beijing Amendment and
that are not listed in paragraph 2 of the present decision, unless such a State has by 31 March 2013:
244
(a) Notified the Secretariat that it intends to ratify, accede to or accept the Beijing Amendment as soon as
possible;
(b) Certified that it is in full compliance with Articles 2, 2A to 2I and Article 4 of the Protocol, as amended
by the Copenhagen Amendment;
(c) Submitted data under subparagraphs (a) and (b) above to the Secretariat, in which case that State shall fall
outside the definition of a “State not party to this Protocol” until the conclusion of the Twenty-Fifth
Meeting of the Parties and the information so submitted will be posted by the Ozone Secretariat on its
website within a week of receipt;
MP DECISIONS
5. That the term “State not party to this Protocol” includes all other States and regional economic integration
ARTICLE 4
organizations that have not agreed to be bound by the Beijing Amendment;
6. That any State that has not agreed to be bound by the Beijing Amendment and that seeks an exception as
provided for in paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Protocol beyond the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties
may do so by submitting a request to the Ozone Secretariat prior to the beginning of the meeting of the
Implementation Committee that immediately precedes the Meeting of the Parties, that the Secretariat will
notify the Committee of any such request, that the Committee will review relevant data submitted in
accordance with Article 7 and develop a recommendation for consideration by the parties and that such
requests seeking the exception provided for in paragraph 8 of Article 4 will be considered on an annual
basis.
Decisions on restrictions on trade with non-Parties
Decision III/15: Annex to the Montreal Protocol
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/15 to:
(a) To adopt as an Annex D to the Montreal Protocol, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article
10 of the Vienna Convention, the list of products containing controlled substances. The annex is
contained in Annex V of the report of the Third Meeting of the Parties;
(b) To request the Secretariat to identify the Customs Code Numbers for the items on the list from the
Customs Co-operation Council. The Customs Code Numbers will be submitted for acceptance by the
Fourth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision IV/16: Annex D to the Montreal Protocol
1. to take note of the entry into force of Annex D to the Protocol on 27 May 1992;
2. to note that Singapore intends to remove its objection with respect to the products classified under items
1, 2 ( with regard to domestic refrigerators and freezers), 4, 5 and 6 of Annex D;
3. to adopt the conclusions of the note regarding the Harmonized System customs code numbers for the
products listed in Annex D of the amended Montreal Protocol, as contained in document
UNEP/OzL.Pro.4/3.
Decision IV/17A: Trade issues
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/17A:
1. to take note of the information provided by some Parties on the implementation of Article 4 of the
Protocol and to encourage further those Parties that have not yet done so to provide the information to the
Secretariat as soon as possible;
245
2. to clarify, as follows, the situation of Parties that have not ratified the London Amendment:
(a) under paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Protocol, the export ban on Annex A substances shall apply
only to any State not party to the Montreal Protocol of 1987;
(b) under paragraph 2 bis of Article 4 of the Protocol, the export ban on Annex B substances shall
commence only on 10 August 1993.
Decision IV/27: Implementation of paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Protocol
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/27 to request the Technology and Economic Assessment
MP DECISIONS
Panel to study the feasibility, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Protocol, of banning or
ARTICLE 4
restricting, from States not party to this Protocol, the import of products produced with, but not containing,
controlled substances in Annex A of the Protocol and to report its findings, by 31 March 1993, to the Secretariat
with a view to their consideration at the Fifth Meeting of the Parties in 1993.
Decision IV/28: Implementation of paragraph 3 bis of Article 4 of the Protocol
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/28 to request the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel to study and report, through the Secretariat, by 31 March 1994 at the latest, on a list of products containing
controlled substances from Annex B to enable the Sixth Meeting of the Parties, in 1994, to consider the
elaboration of such a list as an annex to the Protocol, in accordance with paragraph 3 bis of Article 4 of the
Protocol.
Decision V/17: Feasibility of banning or restricting from States not party to the Montreal
Protocol the import of products produced with, but not containing, controlled substances in
Annex A, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Protocol
1. To note with appreciation the work by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel regarding the
feasibility of banning or restricting the import of products produced with, but not containing, controlled
substances;
2. That it is not feasible to impose a ban or restriction on the import of such products under the Protocol at
this stage;
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review this issue at regular intervals.
Decision V/20: Extension of application of trade measures under Article 4 to controlled

substances listed in Group I of Annex C and in Annex E
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assess the feasibility and implications of
extending the application of trade measures under Article 4 of the Protocol to trade in the controlled
substances listed in Group I of Annex C and in Annex E and report through the Secretariat by 30
November 1994 at the latest to the Open-ended Working Group;
2. To request the Open-ended Working Group to make recommendations on the subject, as appropriate,
with a view to their consideration by the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, in 1995.
246
Decision VI/12: List of products containing controlled substances in Annex B of the Protocol
1. To note the conclusions of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the recommendation of
the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties on elaborating a list of products containing controlled
substances in Annex B of the Protocol;
2. To agree that, in view of the tightening of the phase-out schedule for Annex B substances from 1 January
2000 to 1 January 1996 and ratification of the Protocol by an overwhelming majority of countries, the
elaboration of the list called for in Article 4, paragraph 3 bis, of the Montreal Protocol would be of little
MP DECISIONS
practical consequence and the work entailed in drawing up and adopting such a list would be
ARTICLE 4
disproportionate to the benefits, if any, to the ozone layer;
3. To decide not to elaborate the list specified in Article 4, paragraph 3 bis, of the Montreal Protocol.
Decision VII/7: Trade in methyl bromide
1. To recall paragraph 10 of Article 4 of the Protocol, which provides, inter alia, that Parties shall consider
by 1 January 1996 whether to amend the Protocol in order to extend the measures in Article 4 to trade in
methyl bromide with States not party to the Protocol;
2. Recognizing the importance of Article 4 trade controls in promoting the environmental objectives of the
Protocol, to consider at the Eighth Meeting of the Parties whether to amend the Protocol to control trade
in the controlled substance in Annex E, and in products containing the controlled substance in Annex E,
with States not party to the Protocol;
3. To this end, to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to clarify, before the Eighth
Meeting of the Parties, what products, if any, should be considered products containing the controlled
substance in Annex E.
Decision VIII/15: Control of trade in methyl bromide with non-Parties
To consider the issue of control of trade in methyl bromide with non-Parties at the Ninth Meeting of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol in 1997.
Decision VIII/18: List of products containing controlled substances in Group II of Annex C

(Hydrobromofluorocarbons) of the Protocol
1. To note the conclusion of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on the elaboration of a list of
products containing controlled substances in Group II of Annex C of the Protocol;
2. To decide not to elaborate the lists referred to in Article 4, paragraphs 3 ter and 4 ter of the Montreal
Protocol.
247
Decisions on other trade issues
Decision II/15: Extension of the mandate of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/15 to continue the work of the Open-ended Working
Group of the Parties and to extend its mandate to consider, if necessary and in particular, the following topic:
(d) problems arising under the trade provisions of the Protocol, in respect of both trade between Parties and
trade with non-Parties including issues related to free-trade zones; and to make recommendations to the
Third Meeting of the Parties.
MP DECISIONS
[the remainder of this decision is located under Article 11]

ARTICLE 4
Decision III/16: Trade Issues
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/16 to encourage the Parties to inform the Secretariat of the
implementation of Article 4 of the Protocol.
248
Section 2 Decisions of the Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Article 4A)
Article 4A: Control of trade with Parties
Decision VII/32: Control of export and import of products and equipment containing
substances listed in Annexes A and B of the Montreal Protocol
1. To recommend that each Party adopt legislative and administrative measures, including labelling of
products and equipment, to regulate the export and import, as appropriate, of products and equipment
containing substances listed in Annexes A and B of the Montreal Protocol and of technology used in the
manufacturing of such products and equipment, in order to avert any adverse impact associated with the
MP DECISIONS
export of such products and equipment using technologies that are or will soon be obsolete because of
ARTICLE 4A
their reliance on Annex A or Annex B substances and which would be inconsistent with the spirit of the
Protocol, including decision I/12C of the First Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, held in Helsinki in
1989;
2. To recommend that Parties report on action taken to implement the present decision at future Meetings of
the Parties.
Decision IX/9: Control of export of products and equipment whose continuing functioning
relies on Annex A and Annex B substances
1. To recommend that each Party adopt legislative and administrative measures, including labelling of
products and equipment, to regulate the export and import, as appropriate, of products, equipment,
components and technology whose continuing functioning relies on supply of substances listed in
Annexes A and B of the Montreal Protocol, in order to avert any adverse impact associated with the
export of such products and equipment using technologies that are or will soon be obsolete because of
their reliance on Annex A or Annex B substances and which would be inconsistent with the spirit of the
Protocol, including decision 1/12 C of the First Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, held in Helsinki in
1989;
2. To recommend to non-Article 5 Parties to adopt appropriate measures to control, in cooperation with the
importing Article 5 Parties, the export of used products and equipment, other than personal effects, whose
continuing functioning relies on supply of substances listed in Annexes A and B of the Montreal
Protocol;
3. To recommend to Parties to report to the Tenth Meeting of the Parties on actions taken to implement the
present decision.
Decision X/9: Establishment of a list of countries that do not manufacture for domestic use and
do not wish to import products and equipment whose continuing functioning relies on Annex
A and Annex B substances
1. To recall that decision IX/9 recommends:
(a) That each Party adopt legislative and administrative measures, including labelling of products and
equipment, to regulate the export and import, as appropriate, of products, equipment, components
and technology whose continuing functioning relies on supply of substances listed in Annex A and
Annex B of the Montreal Protocol, in order to avert any adverse impact associated with the export of
such products and equipment using technologies that are or will soon be obsolete because of their
reliance on Annex A or Annex B substances and which would be inconsistent with the spirit of the
Protocol, including decision I/12 C of the First Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, held in
Helsinki in 1989;
249
(b) That non-Article 5 Parties adopt appropriate measures to control, in cooperation with importing
Article 5 Parties, the export of used products and equipment, other than personal effects, whose
continuing functioning relies on supply of substances listed in Annex A and Annex B of the
Montreal Protocol;
2. To note that in order for such export measures to be effective, both importing and exporting Parties need
to take appropriate steps;
3. To note that the products and equipment listed below* constitute categories of products and equipment
whose continued use relies on the supply of substances listed in Annex A or Annex B;
MP DECISIONS
4. To invite, on a voluntary basis, those Parties that do not manufacture for domestic use products and
ARTICLE 4A
equipment in a category listed below* and that do not permit the importation of such products and
equipment from any source, to inform the Secretariat, if they so choose, that they do not consent to the
importation of such products and equipment;
5. To request the Secretariat to maintain a list of Parties that do not want to receive products and equipment
from one or more categories listed below.* This list shall be distributed to all Parties by the Secretariat at
the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties and updated on an annual basis thereafter;
6. To acknowledge that the issue of imports and exports of products and equipment whose continued
functioning relies on Annex A and Annex B substances should be further considered at the Eleventh
Meeting of the Parties with a view to addressing more specifically the concerns of countries in the
process of phasing out production of those products and equipment;
* Products and equipment containing a controlled substance specified in Annex A or B of the Montreal
Protocol: 1) Automobile and truck air conditioning units (whether incorporated in vehicles or not); 2)
domestic and/or commercial refrigeration and air conditioning/heat pump equipment (when containing
controlled substances in Annex A or Annex B as a refrigerant and/or in insulating material of the product)
(e.g. refrigerators, freezers, dehumidifiers, water coolers, ice machines, air conditioning and heat pump
units); 3) transport refrigeration units; 4) aerosol products, except medical aerosols; 5) portable fire
extinguisher; 6) insulation boards, panels and pipe covers; 7) pre-polymers.
Decision XXII/17: Ratification of the Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the
Montreal Protocol by Kazakhstan
1. To note with concern that Kazakhstan is the only party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Montreal Protocol that has not ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Protocol;
2. Mindful that this situation prevents Kazakhstan from trading in ozone-depleting substances, and
particularly in hydrochlorofluorocarbons, with parties to the Protocol;
3. To urge Kazakhstan to ratify, approve or accede to all amendments to the Montreal Protocol so that it can
trade in all ozone-depleting substances with parties to those amendments.
Decision XXVII/8: Avoiding the unwanted import of products and equipment containing or
relying on hydrochlorofluorocarbons
Noting with appreciation the historical role of decision X/9, on the Establishment of a list of countries that do
not manufacture for domestic use and do not wish to import products and equipment whose continuing
functioning relies on Annex A and Annex B substances, adopted by the Tenth Meeting of the Parties in
November 1998, in limiting the use and furthering the phase-out of substances specified in Annex A and Annex
B to the Montreal Protocol during the implementation of country programmes on phasing out
chlorofluorocarbons and halons,
250
Taking into consideration that decision X/9 covers only the substances specified in Annex A and Annex B to the
Montreal Protocol,
Bearing in mind that during the implementation of country programmes on phasing out
hydrochlorofluorocarbons parties may take advantage of the positive experience of implementation of the main
provisions of decision X/9, particularly in developing countries, by introducing bans or restrictions on the import
of products and equipment containing or relying on substances specified in Annex C to the Montreal Protocol
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons),
Taking into consideration that some parties have already introduced bans or restrictions on the import of
products and equipment containing or relying on hydrochlorofluorocarbons and therefore wish to inform
exporting countries of that fact through existing mechanisms under the Montreal Protocol,
MP DECISIONS
1. To invite those parties that do not permit the importation of products and equipment containing or
ARTICLE 4A
relying on hydrochlorofluorocarbons from any source to inform the Secretariat, on a voluntary basis, if
they so choose, that they do not consent to the importation of such products and equipment;
2. To request the Secretariat to maintain a list of parties that do not want to receive products and equipment
containing or relying on hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which shall be distributed to all parties by the
Secretariat and updated on an annual basis.
251
Section 2 Decisions of the Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Article 4B)
Article 4B: Licensing
Decisions on licensing systems
Decision VII/9: Basic domestic needs
Recognizing that the Montreal Protocol requires each Party operating under Article 5 to freeze its production and
consumption of chlorofluorocarbons by 1 July 1999 and of other Annex A and B substances thereafter,
MP DECISIONS
Recognizing the needs of Parties operating under Article 5 for adequate and quality supplies of ozone-depleting
ARTICLE 4B
substances at fair and equitable prices,
Recognizing the need to take steps to avoid any monopoly of supplies of ozone-depleting substances to Parties
operating under Article 5,
Recognizing that the needs above could be met by calculating the production baselines of Parties operating under
Article 5 separately from the consumption baseline and that paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Protocol should be
amended to reflect this,
1. That until the first control measure for each controlled substance in Annex A and B becomes effective for
them (e.g., for chlorofluorocarbons, until 1 July 1999), Parties operating under Article 5 may supply such
substance to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5;
2. That after the first control measure for each controlled substance in Annex A and B becomes effective for
them (e.g., for chlorofluorocarbons, after 1 July 1999), Parties operating under Article 5 may supply such
substance to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5, within the production
limits required by the Protocol;
3. That in order to prevent oversupply and dumping of ozone-depleting substances, all Parties importing and
exporting ozone-depleting substances should monitor and regulate this trade by means of import and
export licences;
4. That in addition to the reporting required under Article 7 of the Protocol, exporting Parties should report
to the Ozone Secretariat by 30 September each year on the types, quantities and destinations of their
exports of ozone-depleting substances during the previous year;
5. That the determination of the eligible incremental costs for phase-out projects in the production sector
should be consistent with paragraph 2 (a) of the indicative list of incremental costs and based on the
conclusions of the Executive Committee’s guidelines on phase-out of the production sector;
6. That the Executive Committee should as a priority agree on modalities to calculate and verify production
capacity in Parties operating under Article 5;
7. That from 7 December 1995, no Party should install or commission any new capacity for the production
of controlled substances listed in Annex A or Annex B of the Montreal Protocol;
8. To incorporate appropriately into the Protocol by the Ninth Meeting of the Parties:
(a) A licensing system, including a ban on unlicensed imports and exports; and
(b) The establishment of a production sector baseline for Parties operating under Article 5 calculated:
(i) For Annex A substances, as the average of the annual calculated level of production during the
period of 1995 to 1997 inclusive or the calculated level of consumption of 0.3 kg per capita,
whichever is lower; and
252
(ii) For Annex B substances, as the average of the annual calculated level of production for 1998
to 2000 inclusive or a calculated level of consumption of 0.2 kg per capita, whichever is lower;
At the same time, the Parties should consider introducing a mechanism to ensure that imports and exports
of controlled substances should only be permitted between Parties to the Montreal Protocol which have
reported data and demonstrated their compliance with all relevant provisions of the Protocol. The Parties
should also consider whether to extend the terms of the present decision to all other controlled substances
covered under the Montreal Protocol.
Decision VIII/26: Exports of ozone-depleting substances and products containing ozone-

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
1. To note that the links among exports of ozone-depleting substances and products containing such
substances under the Montreal Protocol, illegal trade, and compliance with the Montreal Protocol were
discussed at the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol; and also to note that some
aspects of this issue were briefly discussed again at the Eighth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol in the context of document UNEP/OzL.Pro.8/CRP.1;
2. To note that the debate at the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and a brief
discussion at the Eighth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol have demonstrated the
importance, complexity and sensitivity of this issue; and also to note that, in addition, the debate and brief
discussion revealed important aspects that require further deliberation including, inter alia, the need for
controlling exports of ODS from Parties not operating under Article 5 found to be in non-compliance
with their obligations under the Protocol to Parties operating under Article 5;
3. To recognize that this issue ultimately has a direct impact on progress towards the elimination of ozone-
depleting substances and the protection of the ozone layer;
4. To decide to include this issue on the agenda of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group
of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
5. To encourage interested Parties to submit their views to the Secretariat by March 1997, for compilation
and forwarding to Parties prior to the Fifteenth Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol.
Decision IX/8: Licensing system
Noting that decisions V/25 and VI/14A set in place systems for exchange, recording and reporting of information
concerning trade in controlled substances to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5,
Noting that decision VI/14B requested that recommendations be made to the Seventh Meeting of the Parties
concerning whether reports under Article 7 should be made in relation to trade to meet the basic domestic needs
of Parties operating under Article 5,
Noting that decision VII/9 required that an import- and export-licensing system be incorporated into the
Montreal Protocol by the Ninth Meeting of the Parties,
Noting that, in response to a report prepared by the Secretariat on illegal imports and exports of ozone-depleting
substances, decision VIII/20 urged each Party not operating under Article 5 to establish a system for validation
and approval of imports of any used, recycled or reclaimed controlled substances before they are imported and to
report to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties on the establishment of such a system,
Noting that decision VIII/20 also requests the Ninth Meeting of the Parties to consider instituting a system to
require validation and approval of exports of used and recycled ozone-depleting substances from all Parties,
253
Noting that the Ninth Meeting of the Parties has adopted an Amendment to the Protocol, requiring all Parties to
implement an import and export licensing system,
1. That the licensing system to be established by each Party should:
(a) Assist collection of sufficient information to facilitate Parties’ compliance with relevant reporting
requirements under Article 7 of the Protocol and decisions of the Parties; and
(b) Assist Parties in the prevention of illegal traffic of controlled substances, including, as appropriate,
through notification and/or regular reporting by exporting countries to importing countries and/or by
allowing cross-checking of information between exporting and importing countries;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
2. To facilitate the efficient notification and/or reporting and/or cross-checking of information, each Party
should inform the Secretariat by 31 January 1998 of the name and contact details of the officer to whom
such information and requests should be directed. The Secretariat shall periodically prepare, update and
circulate to all Parties a full list of these contact details;
3. That the Secretariat and Implementing Agencies should take steps to assist Parties in the design and
implementation of appropriate national licensing systems;
4. That Parties operating under Article 5 may require assistance in the development, establishment and
operation of such a licensing system and, noting that the Multilateral Fund has provided some funding for
such activities, that the Multilateral Fund should provide appropriate additional funding for this purpose.
Decision XIV/36: Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the
Montreal Protocol
1. To note with appreciation that 59 Parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol have
established import and export licensing systems, as required under the terms of the Amendment;
2. To further note with appreciation that 56 Parties to the Montreal Protocol that have not yet ratified the
Montreal Amendment have also established import and export licensing systems;
3. To urge all the remaining 25 Parties to the Montreal Amendment to provide information to the Secretariat
on the establishment of import and export licensing systems, and for those that have not yet established
such systems to do so as a matter of urgency;
4. To encourage all the remaining Parties to the Montreal Protocol that have not yet ratified the Montreal
Amendment to ratify it and to establish import and export licensing systems if they have not yet done so;
5. To review periodically the status of the establishment of licensing systems by all Parties to the Montreal
Protocol, as called for in Article 4B of the Protocol.
Decision XV/20: Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the
Montreal Protocoll
2. To note also with appreciation that 43 Parties to the Montreal Protocol that have not yet ratified the
3. To recognize that licensing systems bring the following benefits: monitoring of imports and exports of
ozone-depleting substances; prevention of illegal trade; and enabling data collection;
254
6. To urge all Parties that already operate licensing systems to ensure that they are implemented and
enforced effectively;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
Decision XVI/32: Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the
Montreal Protocol
Decision XVII/23: Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the
Montreal Protocol
255
5. To encourage all remaining Parties to the Montreal Protocol that have not yet ratified the Montreal
Decision XVIII/35: Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the
Montreal Protocol
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
1. To note that paragraph 3 of Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol requires each Party, within three months
of the date of introducing its system for licensing the import and export of new, used, recycled and
reclaimed substances in Annexes A, B, C and E of the Protocol, to report to the Secretariat on the
establishment and operation of that system;
2. To note with appreciation that 124 Parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol have established
import and export licensing systems as required under the terms of the Amendment;
3. To note also with appreciation that 30 Parties to the Protocol that have not yet ratified the Montreal
Amendment have also established import and export licensing systems;
ozone-depleting substances; prevention of illegal trade; and enabling of data collection;
5. To note that Parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol that have not yet established licensing
systems are in non-compliance with Article 4B of the Protocol and can be subject to the non-compliance
procedure under the Protocol;
6. To urge all remaining 23 Parties to the Montreal Amendment to provide information to the Secretariat on
the establishment of import and export licensing systems and to urge those that have not yet established
7. To encourage all remaining Parties to the Protocol that have not yet ratified the Montreal Amendment to
ratify it and to establish import and export licensing systems if they have not yet done so;
9. To review periodically the status of the establishment of licensing systems by all Parties to the Protocol,
as called for in Article 4B of the Protocol.
Decision XIX/26: Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the
Montreal Protocol
Noting that paragraph 3 of Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol requires each Party, within three months of the
date of introducing its system for licensing the import and export of new, used, recycled and reclaimed
substances in Annexes A, B, C and E of the Protocol, to report to the Secretariat on the establishment and
operation of that system,
Noting with appreciation that 143 Parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol have established import
and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances as required under the terms of the amendment,
256
Noting also with appreciation that 26 Parties to the Protocol that have not yet ratified the Montreal Amendment
have also established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances,
Recognizing that licensing systems provide for the monitoring of imports and exports of ozone-depleting
substances, prevent illegal trade and enable data collection,
1. To record that Barbados, Cook Islands, Eritrea, Haiti, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Sao Tome and Principe,
Somalia, Tonga, United Republic of Tanzania and Uzbekistan are Parties to the Montreal Amendment to
the Protocol, that they have not yet established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting
substances and are therefore in non-compliance with Article 4B of the Protocol and that financial
assistance has been approved for all of them;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
2. To request each of the 12 Parties listed in paragraph 1 to submit to the Secretariat as a matter of urgency
and no later than 29 February 2008, for consideration by the Implementation Committee under the Non-
Compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol at its fortieth meeting, a plan of action to ensure the
prompt establishment and operation of an import and export licensing system for ozone-depleting
substances;
ratify it and to establish import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances if they have
not yet done so;
4. To urge all Parties that already operate licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances to ensure that
they are structured in accordance with Article 4B of the Protocol and that they are implemented and
5. To review periodically the status of the establishment of import and export licensing systems for
ozone-depleting substances by all Parties to the Protocol, as called for in Article 4B of the Protocol.
Decision XX/14: Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the
Montreal Protocol
controlled substances in Annexes A, B, C and E of the Protocol, to report to the Secretariat on the establishment
and operation of that system,
Noting with appreciation that 159 Parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol have established import
and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances as required under the terms of the amendment,
not yet done so;
3. To review periodically the status of the establishment of import and export licensing systems for ozone-
depleting substances by all Parties to the Protocol, as called for in Article 4B of the Protocol.
257
Decision XXI/12: Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the
Montreal Protocol
Noting with appreciation that 174 out of the 178 Parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol have
MP DECISIONS
established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances as required under the terms of
ARTICLE 4B
the amendment,
not yet done so;
depleting substances by all Parties to the Protocol, as called for in Article 4B of the Protocol.
Decision XXII/19: Status of establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the Montreal
Protocol
Noting that paragraph 3 of Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol requires each party, within three months of the
Noting with appreciation that 176 of the 181 parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol have
established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances as required under the terms of
the amendment,
Noting also with appreciation that 12 parties to the Protocol that have not yet ratified the Montreal Amendment
1. To urge Brunei Darussalam, Ethiopia, Lesotho, San Marino and Timor-Leste, which are the remaining
parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol that have not yet established import and export
licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances, to do so and to report to the Secretariat by 31 May
2011 in time for the Implementation Committee and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties, in 2011, to
review their compliance situation;
258
2. To encourage Angola, Botswana and Vanuatu, which are the remaining parties to the Protocol that have
neither ratified the Montreal Amendment nor established import and export licensing systems for
ozone-depleting substances, to do so;
3. To urge all parties that already operate licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances to ensure that
depleting substances by all parties to the Protocol, as called for in Article 4B of the Protocol.
MP DECISIONS
Decision XXIII/31: Status of the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the
ARTICLE 4B
Montreal Protocol
established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances as required by the Amendment
and that 174 of those parties have provided disaggregated information on their licensing systems detailing which
annexes and groups of substances under the Montreal Protocol are subject to those systems,
Noting also with appreciation that 10 parties to the Protocol that have not yet ratified the Montreal Amendment
have also established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances and that eight of those
parties have provided disaggregated information on their licensing systems,
Recognizing also that the successful phase-out of most ozone-depleting substances by parties is largely
attributable to the establishment and implementation of licensing systems to control the import and export of
ozone-depleting substances,
1. To request Bolivia, the Democratic Republic of Korea, Dominica, Ecuador, Ghana, the Holy See,
Tajikistan and Thailand, which are parties to the Montreal Amendment, and Guinea and Papua New
Guinea, which are non-parties to the Montreal Amendment, none of which have yet provided
disaggregated information on their licensing systems, to submit such information to the Secretariat as a
matter of urgency, and no later than 31 March 2012, for consideration by the Committee at its forty-
eighth meeting;
2. To urge Ethiopia, San Marino and Timor-Leste to complete the establishment and operation of licensing
systems as soon as possible and to report to the Secretariat thereon no later than 31 March 2012;
3. To encourage Botswana, which is non-party to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol and has not yet
established a licensing system, to ratify the Amendment and to establish a licensing system to control
imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances;
4. To urge Chad, Comoros, the Gambia, the Federated States of Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Sudan and
Tonga, which operate licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances that do not include export
controls, to ensure that they are structured in accordance with Article 4B of the Protocol and that they
provide for the licensing of exports and to report there on to the Secretariat;
259
5. To urge Honduras and Togo, whose licensing systems do not regulate substances in Annex C, Group I
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons), to ensure that those systems include import and export controls for the
above-mentioned substances and to report thereon to the Secretariat;
depleting substances by all parties to the Protocol, as called for in Article 4B of the Protocol.
Decision XXIV/17: Status of the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the
Montreal Protocol
The Twenty-fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXIV/17:

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
and that they have provided disaggregated information on their licensing systems detailing which annexes and
groups of substances under the Montreal Protocol are subject to those systems,
attributable to the establishment and implementation of licensing systems to control the import and export of
1. To congratulate South Sudan for having recently ratified all amendments to the Montreal Protocol, and to
request the party to establish an import and export licensing system for ozone-depleting substances
consistent with Article 4 B of the Protocol and to report to the Secretariat by 30 September 2013 on the
establishment of that system;
2. To urge the Gambia, which operates a licensing system for ozone-depleting substances that does not
include export controls, to ensure that that system is structured in accordance with Article 4 B of the
Protocol and that it provides for the licensing of exports and to report thereon to the Secretariat;
3. To encourage Botswana, which is non-party to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol and has not yet
established a licensing system to control imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, to ratify the
Amendment and to establish such a licensing system;
depleting substances by all parties to the Protocol as called for in Article 4 B of the Protocol.
Decision XXV/15: Status of the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the
Montreal Protocol
controlled substances in annexes A, B, C and E to the Protocol, to report to the Secretariat on the establishment
260
and that they have provided disaggregated information on their licensing systems detailing which annexes and
groups of substances under the Montreal Protocol are subject to those systems,
Noting, however, that Botswana and South Sudan, which became parties to the Montreal Amendment in 2013,
have not yet established such systems,
attributable to the establishment and implementation of licensing systems to control the import and export
MP DECISIONS
of ozone-depleting substances,
ARTICLE 4B
1. To request Botswana and South Sudan to establish an import and export licensing system for ozone-
depleting substances consistent with Article 4B of the Protocol and to report to the Secretariat by 31
March 2014 on the establishment of that system;
depleting substances by all parties to the Protocol as called for in Article 4B of the Protocol.
Decisions on illegal trade
Decision VII/33: Illegal imports and exports of controlled substances
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/33 to request that the Secretariat examine information
available to it, and request further information from the Parties regarding dumping, illegal imports and exports,
and uncontrolled production of Annex A and B substances and products containing them that could undermine
the effectiveness of the Protocol, and report to the Eighth Meeting of the Parties, taking into account the non-
compliance procedure under the Montreal Protocol.
Decision VIII/20: Illegal imports and exports of controlled substances
1. To note with appreciation the report prepared by the Secretariat on illegal imports and exports of ozone-
2. To urge each Party not operating under Article 5 that has not already done so to establish a system
requiring validation and approval of imports of any used, recycled or reclaimed ozone-depleting
substances before they are imported. Importers should sufficiently demonstrate to approving authorities
that the ozone-depleting substances have indeed been previously used;
3. To request each Party not operating under Article 5 to report to the Secretariat by the Ninth Meeting of
the Parties on the establishment of the system described in paragraph 2 above;
4. That the exception in decision IV/24 (which provides that the import and export of recycled and used
controlled substances not be taken into account in the calculation of the Party’s consumption level) shall
not apply to any Party not operating under Article 5 that has not established by 1 January 1998 a system
such as that described in paragraph 2 above;
5. To request the Ninth Meeting of the Parties to consider instituting a system to require validation and
approval of exports of used and recycled ozone-depleting substances from all Parties.
261
Decision XII/10: Monitoring of international trade and prevention of illegal trade in

ozone-depleting substances, mixtures and products containing ozone-depleting substances
Recognizing the threat of illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances, mixtures and products containing ozone-
depleting substances to the global process of ozone layer protection,
Understanding the importance of control of trade in ozone-depleting substances, mixtures and products
containing ozone-depleting substances in all Parties in view of the need for global implementation of the
provisions of the Montreal Protocol,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
Acknowledging that presently the effective control at national borders of trade in ozone-depleting substances,
mixtures and products containing ozone-depleting substances is very difficult due to problems in ozone-
depleting substances identification, the complexity of relevant customs codes, the lack of an internationally
accepted common labelling system and the lack of specially trained customs officers, and the need to approach
most of these problems by concerted action at the international level,
Acknowledging that it is important to understand the status of and take into account ongoing work in this area by
other international bodies, and take into consideration previous decisions of the Parties, including decisions
IX/22, X/18 and XI/26,
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat, in consultation, as appropriate, with the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, the United Nations Environment Programme, the discussion group on customs codes
for ozone-depleting substances and international trade and customs organizations, to examine the options
for studying the following issues and to report on these options at the twenty-first meeting of the Open-
ended Working Group for consideration by the Parties in 2001:
(a) Current national legislation on the labelling of ozone-depleting substances, mixtures containing
ozone-depleting substances and products containing ozone-depleting substances;
(b) The need for, scope of and cost of implementation of a universal labelling and/or classification
system for ozone-depleting substances, mixtures containing ozone-depleting substances and
products containing ozone-depleting substances, including the feasibility of the introduction of a
producer-specific marker, identifier or identification methodology;
(c) Methods for sharing experience between Parties on issues related to classification, labelling,
compliance and incidents of illegal trade;
(d) The differences between products containing ozone-depleting substances and mixtures containing
ozone-depleting substances, and the possibility of the creation of a list of categories of products
containing ozone-depleting substances with the corresponding Harmonized System/Combined
Nomenclature classification;
(e) Possible guidance for customs authorities on how to proceed with the illegally traded ozone-
depleting substances seized on the border;
2. To express appreciation for the activities of the Division of Technology, Industry and Economics of the
United Nations Environment Programme and to encourage further work with regard to providing
information on the above to Article 5 Parties and countries with economies in transition, specifically
through customs training at the regional and/or national level.
Decision XIII/12: Monitoring of international trade and prevention of illegal trade in

ozone-depleting substances, mixtures and products containing ozone-depleting substances
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat, in consultation, as appropriate, with the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, the World Customs Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme
262
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (UNEP/DTIE) and the World Trade Organization to
undertake a study and present a report with practical suggestions on the issues contained in Decision
XII/10 to the Open-ended Working Group at its 22nd meeting, in 2002, for consideration by the Parties in
2002;
2. That in preparing the study, the Secretariat should use Decision XII/10 as terms of reference and should
study solely those issues discussed in that decision.
Decision XIV/7: Monitoring of trade in ozone-depleting substances and preventing illegal trade
in ozone-depleting substances
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
Mindful of Decision XIII/12 requesting the Ozone Secretariat to undertake a study dealing with issues related to
monitoring of trade in ODS and preventing illegal trade in ODS listed in Decision XII/10 and present a report
with practical suggestions to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-second meeting, in 2002, for
consideration of the Parties in 2002,
Acknowledging with appreciation the work of the Ozone Secretariat and all organizations and individuals which
assisted in the preparation of the report,
Acknowledging with appreciation the proposal from the Ozone Secretariat, based on the work done by the ODS
Customs Codes Discussion Group convened under Decision X/18, on national subdivisions to customs codes for
classification of mixtures containing ODS, which is presently being processed by the World Customs
Organization,
Recalling previous decisions of the Parties dealing with monitoring of trade in ODS, customs codes, ODS import
and export licensing systems and prevention of illegal trade in ODS, namely Decisions II/12, VI/19, VIII/20,
IX/8, IX/22, X/18 and XI/26,
Understanding the importance of actions aimed at improvement of monitoring of trade in ODS and preventing
illegal trade in ODS for timely and smooth phase-out of ODS according to the agreed schedules,
1. To encourage each Party to consider means and continued efforts to monitor international transit trade;
2. To encourage all Parties to introduce economic incentives that do not impair international trade but which
are appropriate and consistent with international trade law, to promote the use of ODS substitutes and
products (including equipment) containing them or designed for them, and technologies utilizing them;
and to consider demand control measures in addressing illegal trade;
3. To urge each Party that has not already done so to introduce in its national customs classification system
the separate sub-divisions for the most commonly traded HCFCs and other ODS contained in the World
Customs Organization recommendation of 25 June 1999 and request that Parties provide a copy to the
Secretariat; and to urge all Parties to take due account of any new recommendations by the World
Customs Organization once they are agreed;
4. To provide the following further clarification of the difference between a controlled substance, or a
mixture containing a controlled substance, and a product containing a controlled substance contained in
Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol and further explained in Decision I/12A:
(a) No matter which customs code is allocated to a controlled substance or mixture containing a
controlled substance, such substance or mixture, when in a container used for transportation or
storage as defined in Decision 1/12A, shall be considered to be a “controlled substance” and thus
shall be subject to the phase-out schedules agreed upon by the Parties;
(b) The clarification contained in subparagraph (a) above concerns, in particular, controlled substances
or mixtures containing controlled substances classified under customs codes related to their function
263
and sometimes wrongly considered to be “products”, thus avoiding any controls resulting from the
Montreal Protocol phase-out schedules;
5. To encourage all Parties to exchange information and intensify joint efforts to improve means of
identification of ODS and prevention of illegal ODS traffic. In particular those Parties concerned should
make even greater use of the UNEP regional networks and other networks in order to increase
cooperation on illegal trade issues and enforcement activities;
6. To request the Division of Technology, Industry and Economics of the United Nations Environment
Programme through the Executive Committee to report to the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties on the
activities of the regional networks with regard to means of combating illegal trade; to request the
Executive Committee to consider making an evaluation of customs officers training and licensing systems
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
projects a priority and, if possible, report to the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties;
7. To invite Parties, in order to facilitate exchange of information, to report to the Ozone Secretariat fully
proved cases of illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances. The illegally traded quantities should not be
counted against a Party’s consumption provided the Party does not place the said quantities on its own
market. The Secretariat is requested to collect any information on illegal trade received from the Parties
and to disseminate it to all Parties. The Secretariat is also requested to initiate exchanges with countries to
explore options for reducing illegal trade;
8. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to continue to provide financial and
technical assistance to Article 5 Parties to introduce, develop and apply inspection technologies and
equipment in customs to combat illegal ODS traffic and to monitor ODS trade, and to report to the
Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on activities to date.
Decision XVI/33: Illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances
1. To note with appreciation the notes by the Secretariat on information reported by the Parties on illegal
trade in ozone-depleting substances and on streamlining the exchange of information on reducing illegal
trade in ozone-depleting substances;
2. Further to note with appreciation the report by the Division of Technology, Industry and Economics of
the United Nations Environment Programme on activities of the regional networks with regard to means
of combating illegal trade;
3. To note the need for coordination of efforts by Parties at national and international level to suppress
illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances;
4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to gather further ideas from the Parties on further areas of cooperation
between Parties and other bodies in combating illegal trade such as development of a system of tracking
trade in ozone-depleting substances and improvement of communications between exporting and
importing countries in the light of the information provided in the note by the Secretariat on streamlining
the exchange of information on reducing illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances and the report by the
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics of the United Nations Environment Programme on
activities of the regional networks with regard to means of combating illegal trade;
5. Further to request the Ozone Secretariat to produce draft terms of reference for a study on the feasibility
of developing a system of tracking trade in ozone-depleting substances and the cost implications of
carrying out such a study, taking into account the proposal presented by Sri Lanka;
6. To request in addition the Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat to convene in the first half of
2005, and provided that funds are available, a workshop of experts from Parties to the Montreal Protocol
to develop specific areas and a conceptual framework of cooperation in the light both of information
already available and of the reports to be produced by the Secretariat pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5
above and make appropriate proposals to the Meeting of the Parties;
264
7. To consider the information on the outcome of the workshop to be convened by the Ozone Secretariat at
the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XVII/16: Preventing illegal trade in controlled ozone-depleting substances
Mindful of the importance of preventing illegal trade to ensuring the smooth and effective phase-out of
controlled ozone-depleting substances,
Understanding the need to control both import and export of all controlled ozone-depleting substances by all
MP DECISIONS
Parties, in particular through establishment of licensing systems, as required under Article 4B of the Montreal
ARTICLE 4B
Protocol,
Recalling the provisions related to monitoring and control of trade in controlled ozone-depleting substances
contained in decisions VII/9, VIII/20, IX/8 and XIV/7,
Recognizing that there are already trade tracking systems established in other environmental conventions as well
as international trade statistics databases,
Mindful of the ongoing development of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, which
includes as an objective the prevention of illegal international trade, and of decision 23/9 of the Governing
Council of the United Nations Environment Programme, on chemicals management, requesting the Executive
Director of the United Nations Environment Programme to promote cooperation between the Montreal Protocol
and certain other conventions in addressing international illegal trafficking of hazardous chemicals and
hazardous wastes,
Acknowledging with appreciation the draft terms of reference for a study on the feasibility of developing an
international system of tracking the movement of controlled ozone-depleting substances between Parties
produced by the Ozone Secretariat, as required by decision XVI/33,
Noting with appreciation the outcome of the workshop of experts from the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
organized by the Ozone Secretariat on 3 April 2005 in Montreal on the development of specific areas and a
conceptual framework of cooperation in preventing and combating illegal trade in controlled ozone-depleting
substances,
Noting with appreciation the Report of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation
of the Montreal Protocol on the evaluation of customs officers training and licensing system projects to the
twenty-fifth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group,
1. To approve the terms of reference for a study on the feasibility of developing an international system of
monitoring the transboundary movement of controlled ozone-depleting substances between Parties, as
presented in the appendix to the present decision, and to request the Ozone Secretariat to undertake such a
study, to initiate the necessary tenders and to present the results to the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol in 2006;
2. To invite the Ozone Secretariat to consult with other conventions or organizations who might benefit
from the outcome of that study to contribute towards its work;
3. To urge all Parties, including regional economic integration organizations, to implement fully their
obligations under Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol, in particular, the licensing systems for the control
of imports, exports, re-exports (re-exports mean exports of previously imported substances) and, if
technically and administratively feasible, transit of all controlled ozone-depleting substances, including
mixtures containing them, regardless of whether the Party concerned is or is not recognized as the
producer and/or importer, exporter or re-exporter of the particular substance or group of substances;
4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to revise the reporting format resulting from decision VII/9 to cover
exports (including re-exports) of all controlled ozone-depleting substances, including mixtures containing
265
them, and to urge the Parties to implement the revised reporting format expeditiously. The Ozone
Secretariat is also requested to report back aggregated information related to the controlled substance in
question received from the exporting/re-exporting Party to the importing Party concerned;
5. To invite Parties to submit information to the Ozone Secretariat by 30 June 2006 on any existing systems
for exchanging information on import and export licenses between importing and exporting Parties;
6. To consider additional control measures with regard to the use of controlled ozone-depleting substances
in particular sectors or in particular applications, as this approach may effectively diminish illegal trade
activities;
7. To encourage further work on the Green Customs initiative of the United Nations Environment
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
Programme in combating illegal trade in controlled ozone-depleting substances as well as further

networking and twinning activities in the framework of regional networks aimed at the exchange of
information and experience on both licit and illicit trade in controlled ozone-depleting substances
between the Parties, including enforcement agencies;
8. To request the Executive Committee to consider at its forty-eighth meeting the recommendations
contained in the report of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol on the Evaluation of Customs Officers Training and Licensing System Projects to the
twenty-fifth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, in particular where they relate to customs
training and other elements of capacity building that are needed in combating illegal trade in controlled
9. To approve a maximum amount of $200,000 from the Trust Fund of the Vienna Convention as a one-time
measure to facilitate the feasibility study on developing a system for monitoring the transboundary
movement of controlled ozone-depleting substances between the Parties.
Decision XVIII/18: Preventing illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances through systems for
monitoring their transboundary movement between Parties
Acknowledging the urgent need for action to prevent and minimize illegal trade in controlled ozone-depleting
substances so as not to undermine efforts to phase out ozone depleting substances, in particular those of the
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol,
Mindful of decision XVII/16, in which the Parties requested the Ozone Secretariat to undertake a feasibility
study on developing a system for monitoring the transboundary movement of controlled ozone-depleting
substances between the Parties and to present the results of that study to the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties in
2006,
Noting with appreciation the work of the Ozone Secretariat and all organizations and individuals that assisted in
the preparation of the study,
Noting that the study contains recommendations on better implementation and enforcement of existing
mechanisms, notably licensing systems for the control of imports, exports and re-exports as called for in Article
4B of the Protocol, which have a key role to play in monitoring transboundary movements in controlled ozone-
depleting substances,
Acknowledging also the need for Parties to make a detailed assessment of all the options put forward in the study
and, in particular, the medium-term and longer-term options,
1. To urge all Parties to implement fully Article 4B of the Protocol as well as to take into account
recommendations contained in existing decisions of the Parties, notably decisions IX/8, XIV/7, XVII/12
and XVII/16;
2. To encourage all Parties to consider taking effective action to improve monitoring of transboundary
movement of controlled ozone-depleting substances including, as appropriate, a better utilization of
266
existing systems under other multilateral agreements for tracking trade in chemicals and to exchange
relevant information specifically in the context of trade in ozone-depleting substances between Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and Parties not so operating;
3. To encourage all Parties which have experience in using the United Nations commodity trade statistics
database, commonly known as “UNComtrade”, and the publicly available software Global Risk
Identification and Detection, commonly known as “eGRID”, which are used to monitor trade in ozone-
depleting substances, to provide information on the suitability and costs of those tools to the Ozone
Secretariat, which will report such information at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended
Working Group and subsequently at the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2007;
MP DECISIONS
4. To encourage the United Nations Environment Programme’s Compliance Assistance Programme to
ARTICLE 4B
continue its efforts to train ozone officers and customs officers on best practices and to raise awareness
and to disseminate examples of best practices for national licensing systems and regional cooperation to
combat illegal trade;
5. To invite all Parties to submit written comments by 31 March 2007 to the Ozone Secretariat on the report,
focusing in particular on their priorities with respect to the medium-and longer-term options listed in the
study and/or all other possible options with a view to identifying those cost-effective actions which could
be given priority by the Parties both collectively through further action to be considered under the
Protocol and at the regional and national levels;
6. To request the Ozone Secretariat to provide a compilation of those comments for consideration at the
twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and subsequently at the Nineteenth Meeting
of the Parties in 2007.
Decision XIX/12: Preventing illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances
Acknowledging the need for action to prevent and to minimize illegal trade in controlled ozone-depleting
substances and the importance of this issue in continuing discussions on the future of the Protocol,
Mindful of decision XVIII/18, which requested the Parties to provide written comments on the report entitled
“ODS Tracking Feasibility Study on developing a system for monitoring the transboundary movement of
controlled ozone-depleting substances between Parties” and requested the Ozone Secretariat to provide a
compilation of such comments to the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2007,
Noting with appreciation the comments of the Parties on the medium- and longer-term options put forward in the
tracking feasibility study,
Noting that there are other initiatives that could be used in the monitoring of the transboundary movements of
controlled ozone-depleting substances between Parties,
Acknowledging that an important first step toward effective monitoring of transboundary movements of ozone-
depleting substances between Parties would be better implementation and enforcement of existing mechanisms,
Acknowledging the initiative to attempt to combat illegal trade through informal prior informed consent by
countries in the South Asian and South East Asia and Pacific regions and implementation of Project Sky Hole
Patching by the Regional Intelligence Liaison Office of the World Customs Organization,
Recognizing the benefits of transparency and information sharing on measures established by Parties to combat
illegal trade,
Noting that action relevant to trade in ozone-depleting substances may occur in other forums such as the World
Customs Organization,
267
1. To remind all Parties of their obligation under Article 4B of the Protocol to establish an import and export
licensing system for all controlled ozone-depleting substances;
2. To urge all Parties to fully and effectively implement and actively enforce their systems for licensing the
import and export of controlled ozone-depleting substances as well as recommendations contained in
existing decisions of the Parties, notably decisions IX/8, XIV/7, XVII/12, XVII/16 and XVIII/18;
3. That Parties wishing to improve implementation and enforcement of their licensing systems in order to
combat illegal trade more effectively may wish to consider implementing domestically on a voluntary
basis the following measures:
MP DECISIONS
(a) Sharing information with other Parties, such as by participating in an informal prior informed
ARTICLE 4B
consent procedure or similar system;
(b) Establishing quantitative restrictions, for example import and/or export quotas;
(c) Establishing permits for each shipment and obliging importers and exporters to report domestically
on the use of such permits;
(d) Monitoring transit movements (trans-shipments) of ozone-depleting substances, including those

passing through duty-free zones, for instance by identifying each shipment with a unique
consignment reference number;
(e) Banning or controlling the use of non-refillable containers;
(f) Establishing appropriate minimum requirements for labelling and documentation to assist in the
monitoring of trade of ozone-depleting substances;
(g) Cross-checking trade information, including through private-public partnerships;
(h) Including any other relevant recommendations from the ozone-depleting substances tracking study;
4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to continue to collaborate with the World Customs Organization in
relation to possible actions by Parties on any new amendments to the Harmonized Commodity
Description and Coding System with respect to ozone-depleting substances and to report to the Meeting
of the Parties on actions taken at the World Customs Organization.
Decision XXIII/11: Montreal Protocol treatment of ozone-depleting substances used to service

ships, including ships from other flag states
Taking into account that Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
requires parties to establish and implement systems for licensing imports and exports to phase out the production
and consumption of Annex A, B, C, and E ozone-depleting substances,
Taking into account also that consumption is defined under the Montreal Protocol as production plus imports
minus exports,
Recognizing that ships use equipment and technologies containing ozone-depleting substances onboard during
operations in national and international waterways,
Mindful that many parties registered as flag States are unsure of the reporting requirements for ships under the
Montreal Protocol,
268
Concerned that differing party interpretations of the Montreal Protocol with regard to the sale of ozone
depleting-substances to ships may result in the miscalculation of consumption or disparities in the reporting of
consumption,
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat to prepare a document that collects current information about the sale of
ozone-depleting-substances to ships, including ships from other flag States, for onboard servicing and
other onboard uses, including on how parties calculate consumption with regard to such sales, and that
identifies issues relevant to the treatment of the consumption of ozone-depleting substances used to
service ships, including flag ships, for onboard uses for submission to the Open-ended Working Group at
its thirty-second meeting to enable the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties to take a decision on the
matter;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
2. To include in the document any guidance and/or information on ozone-depleting-substances previously
provided to the parties regarding sales to ships for onboard uses;
3. To request the Ozone Secretariat in preparing the document referred to in paragraph 1 to consult as
deemed necessary with relevant international bodies, in particular the International Maritime
Organization and the World Customs Organization, to include in the document information on whether
and how those bodies address:
(a) Trade in ozone-depleting substances for use onboard ships;
(b) Use of ozone-depleting substances onboard ships;
and to provide a general overview on the framework applied by those bodies to manage relevant
activities;
4. To request that the document be made available to all parties at least six weeks before the thirty-second
meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;
5. To request parties to provide to the Ozone Secretariat, by 1 April 2012, information on the current system
used by the parties, if any, to regulate and report on ozone-depleting substances supplied for the purpose
of servicing ships, including ships from other flag States, for onboard use, on how they calculate
consumption with regard to such ozone-depleting substances, and on any relevant cases in which they
have supplied, imported or exported such ozone-depleting substances;
6. Requests the Secretariat to include the information provided pursuant to the preceding paragraph in an
annex to the document called for in paragraph 1;
7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide in its 2012 progress report a
summary on the available data concerning the use of ozone-depleting substances on ships, including the
quantities typically used on different types of ships, the estimated refrigerant bank on ships and an
estimation of emissions;
8. To invite parties in a position to do so to provide, to the extent possible, relevant data concerning the use
of ozone-depleting substances on ships, including the quantities typically used on different types of ships,
the estimated refrigerant bank on ships and an estimation of emissions to the Panel by 1 March 2012.
Decision XXIV/9: Controlled substances used on ships
Noting with appreciation the report provided by the Ozone Secretariat in response to decision XXIII/11,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide together with its 2013 progress
report an updated version of the information provided in its previous progress reports on transport
refrigeration in the maritime sector;
269
2. To invite parties to encourage relevant stakeholders to minimize the use of controlled substances in newly
built ships and to consider environmentally benign and energy-efficient alternatives wherever they are
available;
3. To revisit the issue at the thirty-third meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 4B
270
Decisions on definitions and classification
Decision I/12E: Clarification of terms and definitions: developing countries
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/12E that the following countries shall be considered
developing countries for the purposes of the Protocol:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi,
MP DECISIONS
Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica,
ARTICLE 5
Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic
Yemen, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia,
Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India,
Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic,
Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria,
Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania,
Rwanda, St. Christopher and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda,
United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen,
Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Decision II/10: Data of developing countries
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/10 concerning data of developing countries:
- to ask the Secretariat to determine from the data available to it the exact quantities of the controlled
substances required by developing countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and the possible
sources of supply to assist developed countries to authorize their companies to produce the additional
amounts needed within the percentages authorized by Article 2 and Articles 2A to 2E of the Protocol;
- to request the Secretariat to publish in its annual report on data an updated list of developing countries
which, on the basis of complete data submissions, are considered to be operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5. The Secretariat shall also publish a list of developing countries that, having submitted
incomplete or estimated data, appear to qualify as Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5. In
accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the Protocol, no Party will be eligible for paragraph 1 of
Article 5 treatment until it submits complete data to the Secretariat establishing that its annual calculated
per capita level of consumption is below 0.3 kg.
Decision III/3: Implementation Committee
(d) To endorse the recommendation on the categorization of the developing countries under paragraph 1 of
Article 5:
“In the light of the figures contained in the report on data (UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.2/1/3 and Add.1), the
recommendation contained in paragraph 14 (e) of the report of the Ad hoc Group of Experts on the
Reporting of Data (UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.2/1/4), the Committee determined that the following developing
countries should be temporarily categorized as not operating under Article 5, paragraph 1: Bahrain,
Malta, Singapore and United Arab Emirates. All other developing countries were considered to be
operating under Article 5, paragraph 1.”
271
Decision III/5: Definition of developing countries
(a) to consider the requests by States for classification as developing countries on an individual basis as and
when they come;
(b) to accept the classification of Turkey as a developing country for the purposes of the Montreal Protocol,
noting that Turkey is classified as a developing country by the World Bank, OECD and UNDP;
(c) to request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to study and fully define the criteria which will
MP DECISIONS
be applied in the future in case of applications for classification as a developing country for the purpose
ARTICLE 5
of the Montreal Protocol, and to submit a report for consideration to the Fourth or Fifth Meeting of the
Parties.
Decision III/13: Further adjustments to and amendments of the Montreal Protocol
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/13 regarding further adjustments to and amendments of the
Montreal Protocol to request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties, to consider the following proposal
which is aimed at possibly amending the Montreal Protocol and to submit a report on this proposal to the Fourth
Meeting of the Parties:
(a) Article 7, paragraph 5 (of the amended Protocol): “In cases of trans-shipment of controlled substances
through a third country (as opposed to imports and subsequent re-exports), the country of origin of the
controlled substances shall be regarded as the exporter and the country of final destination shall be
regarded as the importer. In such cases, the responsibility for reporting data shall lie with the country of
origin as the exporter and the country of final destination as the importer. Cases of import and re-export
should be treated as two separate transactions; the country of origin would report shipment to the country
of intermediate destination, which would subsequently report the import from the country of origin and
export to the country of final destination, while the country of final destination would report the import”;
(b) to review all relevant articles of the Montreal Protocol in order to consider the possible consequences of a
country which is operating under Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Protocol, exceeding the consumption
ceiling of 0.3 kilograms per capita specified in that Article;
(c) to discuss measures including possible amendments to the Protocol to clarify the situations of such a
Party with respect to the Article 2 control measures and in particular to specify:
– the base year which should apply to such a Party for the purpose of the reduction schedule;
– the stage of the reduction schedule with which it should be in compliance;
– what (if any) period should be allowed to the Party to enable it to comply fully with the control
measures;
(d) to consider the possible implications of a Party losing its Article 5(1) status if it is at the time a member of
the Executive Committee of the Interim Multilateral Fund.
272
Decision IV/7: Definition of developing countries
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/7 to note that the Open-ended Working Group
recommended that no criteria for future classification as a developing country for the purpose of the Montreal
Protocol be adopted by the Meeting of the Parties and that the Parties should consider individually applications
by Parties for classification as developing countries as and when such applications are made.
Decision IV/15: Situation whereby Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 exceed the
consumption limit set in that Article
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/15 to clarify, as follows, the situation whereby a
developing country operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol exceeds the consumption limits set
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 5
in that Article:
Where a developing country operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol exceeds the
maximum level of consumption for controlled substances set in that Article, the Parties shall consider the
situation on a case-by-case basis when requested to do so by the developing country. The procedure on
non-compliance adopted by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties (Annex IV to the report of the Fourth
Meeting of the Parties) would enable the Implementation Committee to address such a situation with a
view to securing an amicable solution and to make appropriate recommendations to the Meeting of the
Parties regarding, inter alia, such measures as reduction schedules and technical and financial assistance.
Decision V/4: Classification of certain developing countries as not operating under Article 5
and reclassification of certain developing countries earlier classified as not operating under
Article 5
1. To note that Cyprus, Kuwait, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United Arab
Emirates are not classified as Parties operating under Article 5 based on their annual per capita
consumption of controlled substances, which is more than 0.3 kilograms. The classification will be
appropriately revised in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, on receipt of further
data from them, if it warrants reclassification;
2. To reclassify Malta and Bahrain as Parties operating under Article 5 from the year 1991, based on the
data furnished by those Parties showing their annual per capita consumption of controlled substances to
be less than 0.3 kilograms;
3. That the Open-ended Working Group shall analyse the operation of Article 5 with regard to the
classification and reclassification of those developing countries to which the Article applies and propose
to the Sixth Meeting of the Parties any clarificatory decisions it deems necessary.
Decision VI/5: Status of certain Parties vis-à-vis Article 5 of the Protocol
The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/5 to adopt the following principles regarding treatment of
classified and reclassified developing country Parties:
(a) The Secretariat should continue to classify, in absence of complete data, developing countries temporarily
as operating or not operating under Article 5 based on the information available to the Secretariat, subject
to the conditions that:
(i) The Secretariat encourages these Parties to approach the Executive Committee and the
Implementation Committee for assistance in establishing accurate data;
(ii) A country may only be classified temporarily as operating under Article 5 for a period of two years
applicable from the time of adoption of the present decision. After this period, Article 5 status can
no longer be extended without data reporting as required by the Protocol, unless the country has
sought the assistance of the Executive Committee and the Implementation Committee. In this case,
the extension period shall not exceed two years;
273
(iii) A developing country temporarily classified as operating under Article 5 would lose the status if it
does not report base-year data as required by the Protocol within one year of the approval of its
country programme and its institutional strengthening by the Executive Committee, unless otherwise
decided by a Meeting of the Parties;
(b) The Executive Committee will consider projects from Parties temporarily classified as operating under
Article 5. The projects approved when such temporary classification is operative will continue to be
funded even if the countries subsequently are reclassified as not operating under Article 5 on receipt of
data. However, no project will be sanctioned during a period during which the country is classified as not
operating under Article 5;
(c) Parties may be allowed to correct the data submitted by them in the interest of accuracy for a given year
MP DECISIONS
but no change of classification will be permitted for that year pertaining to which the data has been
ARTICLE 5
corrected. Any such corrections should be accompanied by an explanatory note to facilitate the work of
the Implementation Committee;
(d) Regarding developing-country Parties which are initially classified as not operating under Article 5 and
then reclassified, any outstanding contribution to the Multilateral Fund will be disregarded, only for the
years in which they are reclassified as operating under Article 5. Any Party reclassified as operating
under Article 5 will be allowed to utilize the remainder of the ten-year grace period;
(e) Any developing-country Party initially classified as non-Article 5 but reclassified subsequently as
operating under Article 5 shall not be requested to contribute to the Multilateral Fund. Such Parties are
urged not to request financial assistance for national programmes from the Multilateral Fund but may
seek other assistance under Article 10 of the Montreal Protocol. This will not apply if the initial
classification of the Party as non-Article 5, made in the absence of complete data, is subsequently proved
to be wrong on the basis of complete data.
Decision VIII/29: Application of Georgia for developing country status under the Montreal
Protocol
The Eighth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VIII/29 to accept the application of Georgia to be listed as a
developing country for the purposes of the Montreal Protocol, taking into account that Georgia is classified as a
developing country by the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and as
a net recipient country by the United Nations Development Programme.
Decision IX/26: Application of the Republic of Moldova for developing country status under the
Montreal Protocol
The Ninth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IX/26 to accept the application of the Republic of Moldova to
be listed as a developing country for the purposes of the Montreal Protocol, taking into account that the Republic
of Moldova is classified as a developing country by the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development and as a net recipient country by the United Nations Development Programme.
Decision IX/27: Application of South Africa for developing country status under the Montreal
Protocol
Noting that South Africa is classified as a developing country by the United Nations Development Programme
and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,
Noting that South Africa is regarded as a developing country in all other international environmental agreements
and protocols to which it is a Party and where this distinction is made,
Noting that South Africa’s annual calculated level of consumption of controlled substances in Annex A of the
Montreal Protocol was less than 0.3 kilograms per capita at the time of its accession to the Montreal Protocol,
274
Noting that South Africa has thus far totally complied with the requirements of the existing Amendments to the
Montreal Protocol and undertakes not to revert to producing or consuming substances phased out under these
Amendments, and
Noting that South Africa has undertaken not to request financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund for
fulfilling commitments undertaken by developed countries prior to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties,
To accept the classification of South Africa as a developing country for the purposes of the Montreal Protocol.
Decision IX/33: Request by Brunei Darussalam for reclassification as a Party operating under
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 5
1. To recall decision VI/5, subparagraph (c), of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
under which a Party is allowed to correct the data submitted by it in the interest of accuracy for a given
year but no change of classification is permitted for that year pertaining to which the data has been
corrected;
2. To note the revised data on consumption of ozone-depleting substances reported by Brunei Darussalam
for 1994 which show the per capita consumption for that year to be below the allowable limit to operate
3. To note further the data on consumption of ozone-depleting substances reported by Brunei Darussalam
for 1995 which show the per capita consumption for that year to be below the allowable limit to operate
4. To reclassify Brunei Darussalam as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of the Article 5 effective 1
January 1995 on the basis of its data submitted for 1995.
Decision XII/11: Application by Kyrgyzstan for developing country status under the Montreal
Protocol
The Twelfth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XII/11 to accept the application of Kyrgyzstan to be listed as
a developing country for the purposes of the Montreal Protocol, taking into account its difficult economic
situation, its classification as a developing country by World Bank and its low per capita consumption of ozone-
depleting substances.
Decision XII/12: Request by Slovenia to be removed from the list of developing counties under
1. To note the request by Slovenia to be removed from the list of developing countries under Article 5 of the
Montreal Protocol;
2. To approve Slovenia’s request and note further that Slovenia shall assume the obligations of a Party not
operating under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol.
275
Decision XIV/2: Application by Armenia for developing country status under the Montreal
Protocol
The Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIV/2 to accept the application of Armenia to be listed as
a developing country operating under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, taking into account its difficult
economic situation, its classification as a developing country by the World Bank and the United Nations
Development Programme and its low per capita consumption of ozone-depleting substances, on the
understanding that the process for ratification of the London Amendment in Armenia must be completed before
any assistance from the Multilateral Fund can be rendered to the Party.
Decision XVI/39: Application of Turkmenistan for developing country status under the Montreal
MP DECISIONS
Protocol
ARTICLE 5
The Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVI/39 to accept the application of Turkmenistan to be
listed as a developing country for the purposes of the Montreal Protocol, taking into account that the per capita
consumption of Annex A and Annex B substances of the Party is below the limits specified under Article 5 of
the Montreal Protocol and the Party is classified as a low income country by the World Bank.
Decision XVI/40: Request by Malta to be removed from the list of developing countries under
1. To note the request by Malta to be removed from the list of developing countries operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To approve Malta’s request and note further that Malta shall assume the obligations of a Party not
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol.
Decision XVII/2: Request by Cyprus to be removed from the list of developing countries under
1. To note the request by Cyprus to be removed from the list of developing countries operating under
2. To approve the request by Cyprus and note further that Cyprus shall assume the obligations of a Party not
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol for the year 2005 and thereafter.
Decision XIX/7: Eligibility of South Africa for financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund
Recalling decision IX/27, which, while accepting the classification of South Africa as a developing country for
the purposes of the Montreal Protocol, noted that South Africa has undertaken not to request financial assistance
from the Multilateral Fund for fulfilling commitments undertaken by developed countries prior to the Ninth
Meeting of the Parties,
Noting that the adjustment for HCFC control measures of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties contains new
obligations undertaken by all developing countries, including South Africa,
That South Africa, as a developing country operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, is
eligible for technical and financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund for fulfilling its commitments to phase
out both production and consumption of HCFCs, consistent with decision XIX/6 of the Nineteenth meeting of
the Parties.
276
Decision XIX/19: Request by Romania to be removed from the list of developing countries
1. To note the request by Romania to be removed from the list of developing countries operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5;
2. To approve the request by Romania and note further that Romania shall assume the obligations of a Party
not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol from 1 January 2008.
MP DECISIONS
Decision XXV/16: Request by Croatia to be removed from the list of developing countries under
ARTICLE 5
1. To note the request by Croatia to be removed from the list of developing countries operating under
2. To approve the request by Croatia, and to note that Croatia shall assume the obligations of a party not
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol for the year 2014 and thereafter.
Decisions on control measures
Decision V/19: Control measures to be applicable to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of

Article 5 of the Protocol with respect to the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C,
Group II of Annex C, and Annex E
1. To request the Scientific Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in
collaboration with the Secretariat and the Executive Committee to assess the following, in accordance
with Article 6 and taking into account the report required by decision V/11 of the Protocol and to submit
their combined report, through the Secretariat, by 30 November 1994 at the latest, to the Seventh Meeting
of the Parties:
(a) What base year, initial levels, control schedules and phase-out date for consumption of controlled
substances in Group I of Annex C are feasible for application to Parties operating under paragraph 1
(b) What base year, initial levels and control schedules for consumption and production of the
controlled substances in Group II of Annex C are feasible for application to Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;
(c) What base year, initial levels and control schedules for consumption and production of the
controlled substances in Annex E are feasible for application to Parties operating under paragraph 1
2. To request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to consider the
combined report of the two Assessment Panels and submit its recommendation to the Seventh Meeting of
the Parties, in 1995.
Decision IX/5: Conditions for control measures on Annex E substance in Article 5 Parties
1. That, in the fulfilment of the control schedule set out in paragraph 8 ter (d) of Article 5 of the Protocol,
the following conditions shall be met:
277
(a) The Multilateral Fund shall meet, on a grant basis, all agreed incremental costs of Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to enable their compliance with the control measures on methyl
bromide. All methyl-bromide projects will be eligible for funding irrespective of their relative cost-
effectiveness. The Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund should develop and apply specific
criteria for methyl-bromide projects in order to decide which projects to fund first and to ensure that
all Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 are able to meet their obligations regarding
methyl bromide;
(b) While noting that the overall level of resources available to the Multilateral Fund during the 1997–
1999 triennium is limited to the amounts agreed at the Eighth Meeting of the Parties, immediate
priority shall be given to the use of resources of the Multilateral Fund for the purpose of identifying,
evaluating, adapting and demonstrating methyl bromide alternative and substitutes in Parties
MP DECISIONS
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5. In addition to the US$10 million agreed upon at the Eighth
ARTICLE 5
Meeting of the Parties, a sum of US$25 million per year should be made available for these
activities in both 1998 and 1999 to facilitate the earliest possible action towards enabling
compliance with the agreed control measures on methyl bromide;
(c) Future replenishment of the Multilateral Fund should take into account the requirement to provide
new and additional adequate financial and technical assistance to enable Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 to comply with the agreed control measures on methyl bromide;
(d) The alternatives, substitutes and related technologies necessary to enable compliance with the
agreed control measures on methyl bromide must be expeditiously transferred to Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 under fair and most favourable conditions in line with Article 10A of
the Protocol. The Executive Committee should consider ways to enable and promote information
exchange on methyl bromide alternatives among Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
and from Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to Parties operating under that
paragraph;
(e) In light of the assessment by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in 2002 and bearing
in mind the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of decision VII/8 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties,
paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the Protocol, sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) above and the functioning of the
Financial Mechanism as it relates to methyl bromide issues, the Meeting of the Parties shall decide
in 2003 on further specific interim reductions on methyl bromide for the period beyond 2005
applicable to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
2. That the Executive Committee should, during 1998 and 1999, consider and, within the limits of available
funding, approve sufficient financial resources for methyl-bromide projects submitted by Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in order to assist them to fulfil their obligations in advance of the
agreed phase-out schedule.
Decisions on basic domestic needs
Decision I/12C: Clarification of terms and definitions: Basic domestic needs
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/12C to agree to the following clarification of the term “basic
domestic needs” in Articles 2 and 5 of the Protocol: “Basic domestic needs” referred to in Articles 2 and 5 of the
Protocol should be understood as not to allow production of products containing controlled substances to expand
for the purpose of supplying other countries.
Decision IV/29: Meeting the needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Protocol
1. to note with appreciation the report: “Meeting of the needs of Article 5 Parties for controlled substances
during the grace and phase-out periods”, prepared by the Executive Committee of the Interim Multilateral
Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol;
278
2. to request the Executive Committee to update its report and submit it to the Seventh Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol, in 1995, through the Secretariat, before 31 December 1994;
3. to request Parties to take note of the Executive Committee’s report and to take the necessary steps,
consistent with the provisions of the Protocol, to promote an adequate supply of controlled substances in
order to meet the needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol.
Decision V/16: Supply of halons to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Protocol
The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/16 to request the Technology and Economic Assessment
MP DECISIONS
Panel and its Halons Technical Options Committee to study and report through the Secretariat by 31 March 1994
ARTICLE 5
at the latest on the problems and options of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol in
obtaining halon in light of the phase-out in developed countries and subsequent closing of halon production
facilities. This report should particularly analyse whether halon is available to Parties operating under paragraph
1 of Article 5 of the Protocol in sufficient quantity and quality and at affordable prices from banks of recycled
halon.
Decision V/25: Provision of information on the supply of controlled substances to Parties

1. To request Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol which require controlled
substances from another Party to furnish, with effect from 1 January 1995, to the Government of the
supplying Party a letter specifying the volume of the substances required and stating that the substances
are required for the purposes of meeting their basic domestic needs;
2. To request Parties supplying the controlled substances to provide annually to the Secretariat a summary
of the requests received from Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and to
indicate therein whether such Parties receiving the substances have affirmed that the supply is to meet
their basic domestic needs.
Decision VI/14A: Provision of information on the supply of controlled substances to Parties

The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/14A that, in order to facilitate implementation of the
Protocol’s provision concerning the supply of controlled substances to meet the basis domestic needs of Parties
operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Montreal Protocol, a Party may opt to use either decision V/25 or
the following:
(a) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, that requires controlled substances
referred to in Articles 2A and 2E from another Party is requested to furnish, with effect from
1 January 1995, to the Government of the supplying Party within 60 days of such imports a letter
specifying the quantity of the substances imported and stating that the substances are to be used for the
purposes of meeting its basic domestic needs. The Parties concerned will work out an internal mechanism
so that enterprises in importing and exporting countries can trade directly in controlled substances;
(b) Each Party supplying the controlled substances is requested to provide annually to the Secretariat a
summary of the letters received from Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and
to indicate therein whether each such Party receiving the substances had affirmed that such imports are to
meet its basic domestic needs. It is expected that such supplies will be consistent with the provisions of
the Protocol.
279
Decision VI/14B: “Basic domestic needs”
The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/14B to request the Open-ended Working Group to make
recommendations to the Seventh Meeting of the Parties concerning the following issues:
(a) The need for clarification, amendment and/or further definition and of provisions regarding “basic
domestic needs” in Articles 2 and 5 of the Montreal Protocol and under decision 1/12C of the First
(b) What appropriate measures, such as reports under Article 7, should be taken for implementation of
provisions related to “basic domestic needs” in Articles 2 and 5 of the Protocol.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 5
Decision VII/9: Basic domestic needs
Recognizing that the Montreal Protocol requires each Party operating under Article 5 to freeze its production and
consumption of chlorofluorocarbons by 1 July 1999 and of other Annex A and B substances thereafter,
Recognizing the needs of Parties operating under Article 5 for adequate and quality supplies of ozone-depleting
substances at fair and equitable prices,
Recognizing the need to take steps to avoid any monopoly of supplies of ozone-depleting substances to Parties
operating under Article 5,
Recognizing that the needs above could be met by calculating the production baselines of Parties operating under
Article 5 separately from the consumption baseline and that paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Protocol should be
amended to reflect this,
1. That until the first control measure for each controlled substance in Annex A and B becomes effective for
them (e.g., for chlorofluorocarbons, until 1 July 1999), Parties operating under Article 5 may supply such
substance to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5;
2. That after the first control measure for each controlled substance in Annex A and B becomes effective for
them (e.g., for chlorofluorocarbons, after 1 July 1999), Parties operating under Article 5 may supply such
substance to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5, within the production
limits required by the Protocol;
3. That in order to prevent oversupply and dumping of ozone-depleting substances, all Parties importing and
exporting ozone-depleting substances should monitor and regulate this trade by means of import and
export licences;
4. That in addition to the reporting required under Article 7 of the Protocol, exporting Parties should report
to the Ozone Secretariat by 30 September each year on the types, quantities and destinations of their
exports of ozone-depleting substances during the previous year;
5. That the determination of the eligible incremental costs for phase-out projects in the production sector
should be consistent with paragraph 2 (a) of the indicative list of incremental costs and based on the
conclusions of the Executive Committee’s guidelines on phase-out of the production sector;
6. That the Executive Committee should as a priority agree on modalities to calculate and verify production
capacity in Parties operating under Article 5;
7. That from 7 December 1995, no Party should install or commission any new capacity for the production
of controlled substances listed in Annex A or Annex B of the Montreal Protocol;
8. To incorporate appropriately into the Protocol by the Ninth Meeting of the Parties:
280
(a) A licensing system, including a ban on unlicensed imports and exports; and
(b) The establishment of a production sector baseline for Parties operating under Article 5 calculated:
(i) For Annex A substances, as the average of the annual calculated level of production during the
period of 1995 to 1997 inclusive or the calculated level of consumption of 0.3 kg per capita,
whichever is lower; and
(ii) For Annex B substances, as the average of the annual calculated level of production for 1998
to 2000 inclusive or a calculated level of consumption of 0.2 kg per capita, whichever is lower;
At the same time, the Parties should consider introducing a mechanism to ensure that imports and exports
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 5
of controlled substances should only be permitted between Parties to the Montreal Protocol which have
reported data and demonstrated their compliance with all relevant provisions of the Protocol. The Parties
should also consider whether to extend the terms of the present decision to all other controlled substances
covered under the Montreal Protocol.
Decision X/15: Exports of controlled substances in Annex A and Annex B to the Montreal
Protocol from non-Article 5 Parties to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5 Parties
Aware that Parties operating under Article 5 are taking measures under the Protocol to limit their
production of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A and Annex B,
Concerned that this reduction should not be offset by any unnecessary increase in exports of controlled
substances from non-Article 5 Parties under the provisions of Article 2 of the Protocol,
- To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel:
(a) To make an assessment of the quantities of controlled substances in Annex A and Annex B to the
Protocol likely to be required and produced by Parties operating under Article 5 of the Protocol for
the period 1999-2010;
(b) To make an assessment of the quantities of controlled substances in Annex A and Annex B to the
Protocol which need to be produced and exported by Parties not operating under Article 5 in order to
meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5 during the period 1999-2010;
(c) To present its report to the Open-ended Working Group in time for the issue to be considered by the
Eleventh Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XI/28: Supply of HCFCs to Parties operating under paragraph 1 Article 5 of the
Protocol
The Eleventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XI/28 to request the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel to study and report by 30 April 2003 at the latest on the problems and options of Article 5 Parties in
obtaining HCFCs in the light of the freeze on the production of HCFCs in non-Article 5 Parties in the year 2004.
This report should analyse whether HCFCs are available to Article 5 Parties in sufficient quantity and quality
and at affordable prices, taking into account the 15 per cent allowance to meet the basic domestic needs of the
Article 5 Parties and the surplus quantities available from the consumption limit allowed to the non-Article 5
Parties. The Parties, at their Fifteenth Meeting in the year 2003, shall consider this report for the purpose of
addressing problems, if any, brought out by the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel.
281
Decision XV/2: Production for basic domestic needs
Aware that Parties operating under Article 5 have been taking measures gradually to reduce and eventually
eliminate their production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), and
Annex B, group II (carbon tetrachloride),
Aware also that Parties not operating under Article 5 have also been taking steps in advance of the Protocol
control measures to reduce their production of those controlled substances that are exported to meet the basic
domestic needs of Article 5 Parties,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 5
Recognizing the need to ensure that the supply of Annex A, group I and Annex B, group II (carbon tetrachloride)
ozone-depleting substances is sufficient to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5 Parties, while not being so
abundant as to discourage efforts to phase out those substances in compliance with the Montreal Protocol,
Recognizing also that comprehensive information on market trends related to Annex A, group I and Annex B,
group II ozone-depleting substances would allow better planning by Article 5 Parties and ensure a more efficient
and predictable phase-out of those substances,
To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel:
(a) To assess the quantities of controlled substances in Annex A, group I and Annex B, group II to the
Montreal Protocol that are likely to be required by Parties operating under Article 5 of the Protocol for
the period 2004-2010;
(b) To assess the permitted levels of production from companies in Parties operating under Article 5 to the
Protocol, taking into account schedules agreed for reduction in production under the Multilateral Fund;
(c) To assess the quantities of controlled substances in Annex A, group I and Annex B, group II to the
Protocol which can be produced and exported by Parties not operating under Article 5 in order to meet
the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5 during the period 2004-2010, taking into
account regional production phase-out regulations and agreements;
(d) To also take into account, when preparing the assessments, the actual and potential impact of training
programmes for refrigeration technicians, retrofitting, recovery and recycling operations and other
measures in reducing the demand for Annex A, group I and Annex B, group II substances;
(e) To report on bulk price ranges of Annex A, group I and Annex B, group II substances in a representative
sample of Article 5 Parties, including relative changes in bulk prices from 1 January 2001 to
31 December 2003, in comparison to bulk prices of alternatives;
(f) To present its report to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-fourth session or at the Sixteenth
Decision XVII/12: Minimizing production of chlorofluorocarbons by Parties not operating under

paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
Noting that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol continue to report
production of chlorofluorocarbons to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, pursuant to Article 2A of the Protocol,
Recalling that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel reported to the Parties in its 2004 Basic
Domestic Needs Task Force Report that there is no evidence of chlorofluorocarbon supply shortage in recent
years and that the bulk market price for chlorofluorocarbons in Parties operating under Article 5 of the Protocol
282
is not rising, a situation that may be impeding the market penetration of chlorofluorocarbon alternatives in those
countries,
Also noting the phase-out schedule for production of chlorofluorocarbons to meet the basic domestic needs of
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 by 2010 as set out in Article 2A of the Protocol,
Recognizing the successful efforts of several Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to phase out their
chlorofluorocarbon production with assistance from the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol,
Recognizing the successful efforts of several Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in phasing out
MP DECISIONS
production of chlorofluorocarbons for basic domestic needs,
ARTICLE 5
Mindful of the requirement set out in decision V/25 for Parties supplying the basic domestic needs of Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to report such quantities and secure and report affirmations from
receiving Parties, and of decision VII/9 on basic domestic needs,
Noting that sufficient supplies of chlorofluorocarbons are available from production facilities in Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and from recycled and reclaimed stocks,
Seeking to phase out chlorofluorocarbon production as soon as possible,
1. To urge all Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 that produce chlorofluorocarbons to meet
the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to ensure that such
production is truly required by:
(a) Requesting a written affirmation from the prospective importing Party that the chlorofluorocarbons
are required and that such importation would not result in its non-compliance, prior to exporting any
chlorofluorocarbons to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5;
(b) Including copies of these written affirmations when reporting chlorofluorocarbon production to meet
the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to the Ozone Secretariat
under Article 7 of the Protocol;
2. To request that the Secretariat report at the next Meeting of the Parties and at each regular Meeting of the
Parties thereafter, the level of production of chlorofluorocarbons in Parties not operating under paragraph
1 of Article 5 to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 as
compared to their allowed production as set out in Article 2A of the Protocol and when doing so to
include copies of the affirmations, together with available data on transfer of production rights;
3. To urge all Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 that have an entitlement to produce
chlorofluorocarbons for the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to
ensure an accelerated phase-out of their production, and to report back to the Parties at their Eighteenth
Meeting on progress in eliminating production of chlorofluorocarbons for basic domestic needs;
4. To consider at the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties an adjustment to accelerate the phase-out schedule
set out in Article 2A of the Protocol for chlorofluorocarbon production to meet the basic domestic needs
of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5.
283
Decision XIX/28: Implementation of paragraph 1 of decision XVII/12 with respect to the

reporting of production of chlorofluorocarbons by Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under
Recalling that decision XVII/12 of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties urges Parties not operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol (non-Article 5 Parties), prior to exporting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 (Article 5 Parties), to request written affirmations from such
Parties that the CFCs are required by them and that their importation will not result in those Parties’
MP DECISIONS
non-compliance,
ARTICLE 5
Recalling also that paragraph 1 of decision XVII/12 urges all non-Article 5 Parties that produce CFCs to meet
the basic domestic needs of Article 5 Parties to include in their annual data reports to the Secretariat copies of the
written affirmations they receive from prospective importing Parties pursuant to that decision,
Recalling further that paragraph 2 of decision XVII/12 requests the Secretariat to report at each regular meeting
of the Parties the level of production of CFCs in non-Article 5 Parties to meet the basic domestic needs of
Article 5 Parties, as compared to their allowed production set out in Article 2A of the Protocol, and when doing
so to include copies of the affirmations referred to above, together with available data on transfer of production
rights,
To request the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol to
review, on the basis of the report prepared by the Secretariat in accordance with paragraph 2 of decision
XVII/12, the implementation by the Parties of paragraph 1 of decision XVII/12, and to report its conclusions,
including any appropriate recommendations, to the Meeting of the Parties.
Decisions on review under paragraph 8
Decision V/11: Review under paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the Protocol
Protocol to prepare a report in respect of the review referred to in paragraph 8 of Article 5, taking into
account section II, paragraph 4, of decision IV/18 and submit it to the Open-ended Working Group of the
Parties through the Secretariat by 31 December 1994 and to prepare, and submit through the Secretariat,
an addendum to its report no later than three months before the 1995 Meeting of the Parties with a view
to its consideration at that Meeting. Such report shall include consideration of:
(a) The operation of the Fund to date;
(b) The rate at which low- and non-ozone-depleting-substance technologies are being transferred to or
developed by Parties operating under Article 5, including the report on the actual implementation of
these technologies;
(c) The progress made and problems encountered by Article 5 Parties in implementing their country
programmes;
(d) The current plans of Article 5 Parties as articulated in their country programmes;
(e) The financial implications of various phase-out strategies, including a comparison in achieving the
targets set in the London and the Copenhagen Amendments;
(f) The feasibility of achieving the greatest possible reduction as soon as possible.
284
The comments of the Parties will be invited on the draft report in a manner so as to be available to the
Open-ended Working Group and the Meeting of the Parties if required;
2. To request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to consider the report and make
recommendations as appropriate to the Seventh Meeting of the Parties.
Decision VII/4: Provision of financial support and technology transfer
1. To emphasize the importance of the effective implementation of financial cooperation, including

provision of adequate funding under Article 10 and technology transfer under Article 10 A of the
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 5
Montreal Protocol, in assisting Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in complying with the
existing control measures under the Protocol;
2. To stress that the adoption of any new control measures by the Seventh Meeting of the Parties for Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 will require additional funding which will need to be reflected in
the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund in 1996 and beyond and in the implementation of technology
transfer;
3. To underline that the implementation of control measures by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 will, as provided in Article 5, paragraph 5, depend upon the effective implementation of the
financial cooperation as provided by Article 10 and the transfer of technology as provided by Article
10A;
4. To urge Parties when taking decisions on the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund in 1996 and beyond,
to allocate the necessary funds in order to ensure that countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
can comply with their agreed control measure commitments.
Decision X/29: Inconsistencies in the timing for the reporting of data under Article 7 and for
monitoring compliance with the phase-out schedule under Article 5, paragraph 8 bis
Noting that the compliance period for Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol for
the freeze in production and consumption extends from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, from 1 July 2000 to
30 June 2001, and from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 under paragraph 8 bis of Article 5,
Noting also that the process of collecting accurate data on anything other than a calendar year basis is
very difficult,
Noting further that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 faced similar difficulties, which
were overcome when it became clear that their reductions in production and consumption were
significantly below those required under the freeze obligations of Article 2A,
1. To urge the Implementation Committee to review and report on the status of the data reported by Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, relative to the freeze in production and consumption using the
best available data submitted;
2. To urge the Implementation Committee to view the data from the July to June time period, or other time
periods relevant to paragraph 8 bis of Article 5, as especially critical in cases where annual data submitted
by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 demonstrates that a country is very close to its
baseline freeze level.
285
Decisions on participation of developing countries
Decision III/6: Participation of developing countries
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/6 to encourage the participation of representatives of
developing countries in meetings of assessment panels, the Committee on Destruction Technologies, the Bureau
and working groups and in any other meetings convened under the Montreal Protocol and to provide, as far as
possible, financial assistance for such participation.
Decision IV/8: Participation of developing countries

MP DECISIONS
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/8 to encourage further the participation of representatives
ARTICLE 5
of developing countries in all meetings organized under the Montreal Protocol and to provide financial
assistance for such participation in the 1993 and 1994 budgets.
286
Decisions on establishment and organisation of assessment panels
Decision I/3: Establishment of Assessment Panels
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/3 to endorse the establishment, in accordance with Article 6 of
the Montreal Protocol, of the following four review panels:
(a) Panel for Scientific Assessment,
MP DECISIONS
(b) Panel for Environmental Assessment,
ARTICLE 6
(c) Panel for Technical Assessment,
(d) Panel for Economic Assessment,
according to the composition in Annex V and the Terms of Reference in Annex VI of the report of the First
Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.3 of this Handbook].
Decision I/5: Establishment of Open-ended Working Group
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/5 to establish an Open-ended Working Group inter alia to:
(a) review the report of the four panels referred in Decision I/3, and integrate them into one synthesis report;
(b) based on (a) above, and taking into account the views expressed at the First Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol, prepare draft proposals for any amendments to the Protocol which would be needed.
Such proposals are to be circulated to the Parties in accordance with Article 9 of the Vienna Convention
for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.
Decision I/10: Characteristics of relevant substances
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/10 to request the Panel for Scientific Assessment to give full
consideration to ODPs, greenhouse-warming potential and atmospheric life-time of the various atmospheric
constituents whether controlled or not, and advise the Parties as to the environmental characteristics, both
currently and in the light of projections of future production and emission, of all relevant atmospheric
constituents. In this regard, particular attention should be paid to potential substitutes for the presently controlled
substances, particularly HCFC–22. Similarly, the importance of methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride in
controlling the volume of atmospheric ozone should be quantified.
Decision II/13: Assessment panels
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/13 with regard to assessment panels:
to request the Technology Review Panel to assess, in accordance with Article 6, the earliest technically feasible
dates and the costs for reductions and total phase-out of 1,1,1–trichloromethane (methyl chloroform) and to
report its findings in time for consideration by the preparatory meeting to the Fourth Meeting of the Parties with
a view to their consideration at that Fourth Meeting;
to request the Secretariat to convene members of each of the four assessment panels established by the First
Meeting of the Parties to review new information and to consider its inclusion in supplementary reports in time
for consideration by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties, subject to a review of their mandate in the context of
Article 2, paragraph 9, at the Third Meeting of the Parties;
to request the Technology Review Panel to include in its work:
(a) an evaluation of the need for transitional substances in specific applications;
287
(b) an analysis of the quantity of controlled substances required by Parties operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 for their basic domestic needs, both at present and in the future, and the likely
availability of such supplies; and
(c) a comparison of the toxicity, flammability, energy efficiency implications and other environmental
and safety considerations of chemical substitutes, along with an analysis of the likely availability of
substitutes for medical uses;
to request the Scientific Assessment Panel to include in its work:
(a) an evaluation of the ozone-depletion potential, other possible ozone layer impacts, and global
MP DECISIONS
warming potential of chemical substitutes (e.g. HCFCs and HFCs) for controlled substances;
ARTICLE 6
(b) an evaluation of the likely ozone-depletion potential of “other halons” that might be produced in
significant quantities; and
(c) an analysis of the anticipated impact on the ozone layer of the revised control measures reflecting
the changes adopted at the Second Meeting of the Parties taking into account the current level of
global participation in the Protocol;
to instruct the Scientific Assessment Panel to prepare estimated data on the impacts on the ozone layer of engine
emissions from high-altitude aircraft, heavy rockets and space shuttles;
to undertake efforts to encourage broad participation in all assessment panels by experts from developing
countries.
Decision III/12: Assessment Panels
(a) to request the Assessment Panels and in particular the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to
evaluate, without prejudice to Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, the implications, in particular for
developing countries, of the possibilities and difficulties of an earlier phase-out of the controlled
substances, for example of the implications of a 1997 phase-out.
Decision IV/13: Assessment panels
1. to note with appreciation the work done by the Panels for Ozone Scientific Assessment, Environmental
Effects Assessment, and Technology and Economic Assessment in their reports of November–December
1991;
2. to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Technical and Economic Options
Committees to report annually to the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
the technical progress in reducing the use and emissions of controlled substances and assess the use of
alternatives, particularly their direct and indirect global-warming effects;
3. to request the three assessment panels to update their reports and submit them to the Secretariat by 30
November 1994 for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group and by the Seventh Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol. These assessments should cover all major facets discussed in the 1991
assessments with enhanced emphasis on methyl bromide. The scientific assessment should also include
an evaluation of the impact of sub-sonic aircraft on ozone;
288
4. to encourage the panels to meet once a year to enable the co-chairpersons of the panels to bring to the
notice of the meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, through the Secretariat, any significant
developments which, in their opinion, deserve such notice.
Decision V/13: Assessment Panel reports
1. To note with appreciation the interim reports of the Co-Chairs of the Scientific and the Environmental
Effects Assessment Panels and to request them to continue their work in accordance with the decisions of
the Fourth and Fifth Meetings of the Parties to the Protocol;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
2. To note with appreciation the reports of the Halons Technical Options Committee and of the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel submitted in July 1993;
3. To note with satisfaction the progress in reducing the consumption of the controlled substances.
Decision VII/34: Assessment Panels
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Scientific, Environmental Effects, and Technology and
Economic Assessment Panels and the Technical Options Committees and Working Groups in preparing
their reports of November 1994, March 1995 and November 1995;
2. To request the three Assessment Panels to update their reports of November 1994 and submit them to the
Secretariat by 31 October 1998 for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group and by the Eleventh
Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 1999;
3. That the Scientific Assessment Panel should keep the Parties to the Montreal Protocol informed of any
important new scientific developments on a year-to-year basis. The major emphasis of the 1998
assessment should be twofold:
(a) An evaluation of the updated understanding of the impact of halocarbons on the ozone layer,
including: observed and expected trends in controlled substances, ozone, and ultraviolet radiation;
an improved understanding of the ozone-depleting role of methyl bromide; consequences to the
ozone layer of non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol; a continuing evaluation of the
ozone-depleting potentials of the substitutes for the phased-out substances; and the prediction of
future halogen atmospheric abundances and ozone levels; and
(b) An assessment of other aspects of ozone changes, such as the impacts of aircraft emissions, and the
role of ozone changes in the alteration of the global climate system, with particular attention to the
need for adequate information in the southern hemisphere. The Panel is requested to work as
appropriate with the International Civil Aviation Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change;
4. That the Environmental Effects Panel should keep the Parties to the Montreal Protocol informed on any
important new scientific developments on a year-to-year basis. It should consider:
(a) In consultation with the Scientific Assessment Panel, observed and predicted changes in ultraviolet
radiation;
(b) Environmental effects of changing ultraviolet radiation; and
(c) Direct environmental effects of chemicals involved in the problem of depletion of the ozone layer;
5. That the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should keep the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
informed of any important new technical and economic developments on a year-to-year basis. It should
furthermore:
289
(a) Complete by 31 March of each year the evaluation of essential-use nominations submitted for 1997
and beyond;
(b) With regard to metered-dose inhalers:
(i) Recommend an accounting framework for reporting quantities and uses of ozone-depleting
substances produced and consumed for metered-dose inhalers under terms of essential-use
exemptions;
(ii) Report progress in commercial availability and acceptance of emerging non-ODS alternatives
and substitutes;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
(iii) Describe educational and training approaches to speed and the successful transition to non-
ODS therapy, mindful of the needs of patients and the special circumstances of Parties
operating under Article 5 and countries with economies in transition; and
(iv) By 31 March 1996, consider options for a transitional strategy for metered-dose inhalers,
taking into consideration the rate of commercialization, manufacturing rationalization, the
progress on national approval, the special circumstances of Parties operating under Article 5
and countries with economies in transition, and the importance of drug access by patients,
including those who face particularly challenging therapy;
(c) Report progress and developments in the control of substances by 31 March of each year;
(d) Update or supplement its report on the status of implementation of the Protocol in the countries with
economies in transition by 31 March 1996;
(e) With regard to its organization and functioning:
(i) Proceed with efforts to increase participation of Article 5 country experts, subject to budgetary
constraints, and to improve geographical and expertise balance;
(ii) Present procedures and criteria for the nomination and selection of members of the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel;
(iii) Request the Secretariat to appoint a small informal advisory group from both Article 5 and
non-Article 5 Parties to meet with the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and to
report back to the Parties on the progress made; and
(iv) Report to the Parties at the thirteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, in 1996,
including:
a. A description of member expertise highlighting relevance, affiliation, country of

residence and period of service to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;
b. Its methods of operation, including appointment of new members to subsidiary bodies,

promotion to chair and other matters; and
c. Options proposed for restructuring the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and
its Technical Options Committees and Working Groups, including the financial and
chairing issues in compliance with the terms of reference as set out in various decisions,
including decision I/3, and propose adjustments, if deemed necessary, to those terms of
reference;
(f) Prepare a document listing the uses and possible applications of ozone-depleting substances listed in
Annex C to the Protocol, enabling Parties to collect information on their consumption levels for the
purpose of compliance with reporting requirements;
(g) Collaborate with the Industry and Environment Programme Activity Centre of the United Nations
Environment Programme to prepare, in accordance with the provisions of decision VII/22, the report
290
on inventory and assessment of technologies and know-how to phase out ozone-depleting

substances, including an elaboration of the terms under which transfers of such technology and
know-how take place;
6. That the enhanced participation of the Parties operating under Article 5 and countries with economies in
transition should be funded by the Secretariat with an adequate budget allocation or could be also
provided by additional voluntary contributions which all Parties are encouraged to offer;
7. To offer the assistance of the Scientific, Environmental Effects, and Technology and Economic
Assessment Panels to the subsidiary body on science and technology under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, as necessary;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
8. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to present the annual schedules of its
meetings and workshops to the Secretariat.
Decision VIII/19: Organization and functioning of the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel
Technical Options Committees and Working Groups in preparing their reports;
2. To note with appreciation the report of the Informal Advisory Group on the organization and functioning
of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;
3. To confirm the current membership of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as set out in
Appendix I to its June 1996 report, and also to confirm Mr. R. Agarwal as Co-Chair of the Refrigeration
Technical Options Committee;
4. To confirm the current list of Technical Options Committees, as set out in Appendix II to that report,
whilst noting that this list may be added to or amended according to mandates set by any Meeting of the
Parties;
5. To approve terms of reference and the Code of Conduct for the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel, the technical options committees, and any temporary subsidiary bodies set up by those bodies, as
contained in annex V to the report of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties;
6. That the nomination and appointment process for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, as set
out in the new Terms of Reference, should apply to all appointments commencing with those made at the
Ninth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XI/17: Terms of reference for Assessment Panels
1. To note with appreciation the excellent and highly useful work done by the Scientific, Environmental
Effects, and Technology and Economic Assessment Panels and their colleagues worldwide in preparing
their reports of 1998 including the Synthesis Report of 1999 and its decadal perspective of the
information provided by the Panels over the period 1989-1999;
2. To note also with appreciation, and encourage as appropriate, the ongoing fruitful collaboration of the
Panels with the Subsidiary Body on Science and Technology under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the International
Civil Aviation Organization;
291
3. To request the three Assessment Panels to update their 1998 reports in 2002 and submit them to the
Secretariat by 1 January 2003 for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group and by the Fifteenth
Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2003;
4. To request the Assessment Panels to keep the Parties to the Montreal Protocol informed of any important
new developments on a year-to-year basis;
5. To request the Scientific Assessment Panel to include the following in the 2002 scientific assessment:
(a) An evaluation of the observed trends in controlled substances and their consistency with reported
production of ODS;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
(b) A quantification of the ozone-depleting impacts of new (e.g., short-lived) halogen-containing

substances;
(c) A characterization of methyl bromide sources and sinks and the likely quantitative implications of
the results for the ozone layer;
(d) A characterization of the known interrelations between ozone depletion and climate change
including feedbacks between the two;
(e) A description and interpretation of the observed changes in global and polar ozone and in ultraviolet
radiation, as well as set future projections and scenarios for these variables, taking into account also
the expected impacts of climate change;
6. To request the Environmental Effects Panel to continue the identification of the impacts of ozone
depletion noting its association with aspects of climate change, including:
(a) An evaluation of how the combined influence of ultraviolet radiation changes due to ozone
depletion and climate change factors can impact on the biosphere and on human health;
(b) A characterization of those impacts caused by ultraviolet radiation changes that may have effects on
climate;
Decision XV/53: Terms of reference for the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Environmental
Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
1. To note with appreciation the excellent and highly useful work conducted by the Scientific Assessment
Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
and their colleagues worldwide in preparing their 2002 reports, including the 2003 synthesis report;
2. To request the three assessment panels to update their 2002 reports in 2006 and submit them to the
Secretariat by 31 December 2006 for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group and by the
Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, in 2007;
3. To request the assessment panels to keep the Parties to the Montreal Protocol informed of any important
new developments on a year-to-year basis;
4. That, for the 2006 report, the Scientific Assessment Panel should consider issues including:
(a) Assessment of the state of the ozone layer and its expected recovery;
(b) Evaluation of specific aspects of recent annual Antarctic ozone holes, in particular the hole that
occurred in 2002;
292
(c) Evaluation of the trends in the concentration of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere and
their consistency with reported production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances;
(d) Assessment of the impacts of climate change on ozone-layer recovery;
(e) Analysis of atmospheric concentrations of bromine and the likely quantitative implications of the
results on the state of the ozone layer;
(f) Description and interpretation of the observed changes in global and polar ozone and in ultraviolet
radiation, as well as set future projections and scenarios for those variables, taking also into account
the expected impacts of climate change;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
5. That, for the 2006 report, the Environmental Effects Panel should continue identifying the environmental
impacts of ozone depletion and the environmental impacts of the interaction of ozone depletion and
climate change;
6. That the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should, among other matters, consider the
following topics:
(a) Significance of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances for sustainable development,

particularly in Article 5 countries and countries with economies in transition;
(b) Technical progress in all sectors;
(c) Technically and economically feasible choices for the elimination of ozone-depleting substances by
the use of alternatives that have superior environmental performance with regard to climate change,
human health and sustainability;
(d) Technical progress on the recovery, reuse and destruction of ozone-depleting substances;
(e) Accounting of the production and use of ozone-depleting substances and of ozone-depleting
substances in inventory or contained in products.
Decision Ex.I/5: Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl
Acknowledging with appreciation the important and valuable work undertaken so far by the Methyl Bromide
Reaffirming the need for the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to sustain an optimum level of
expertise to be able to address diverse types of alternatives to methyl bromide and the desirability of having a
reasonable term of membership of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to ensure continuity;
Noting decision XIII/11, which requests the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to engage suitably
qualified agricultural economists to assist in reviewing nominations,
Recognizing the desirability of ensuring that some members of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee have knowledge of alternatives that are used in commercial practice, and practical experience in
technology transfer and deployment,
Recognizing the need to strengthen the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee and to enhance the
transparency and efficiency of the Committee’s process relating to the evaluation of nominations for critical-use
exemptions,
Noting the terms of reference for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options
committees adopted at the Eighth Meeting of the Parties,
293
Mindful that those terms of reference state that the overall goal is to achieve a representation of about 50 per cent
for Article 5 Parties and noting that current Article 5 representation within the Methyl Bromide Technical
Options Committee is only about 30 per cent,
Recalling decision XV/54 on categories of assessment to be used by the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel when assessing critical uses of methyl bromide,
1. To establish a process to review the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide
Technical Options Committee as they relate to the evaluation of nominations for critical use exemptions;
2. That such a review shall consider, in particular:

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
(a) The need to enhance the transparency and efficiency of the analysis and reporting by the Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee on critical-use nominations, including the communication
between the nominating Party and the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee;
(b) The timing and structure of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee reports on critical-
use nominations;
(c) The duration and rotation of membership, taking into account the need to provide for a reasonable
turnover of members while also ensuring continuity;
(d) The conflict-of-interest documents which must be completed by members of the Methyl Bromide
(e) The expertise required in the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, taking into account
among other things that the composition of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee
should ensure that some members have practical and first-hand experience which should relate, in
particular, to replacing methyl bromide with alternatives, and that within that composition reflected
the appropriate skills and expertise required to perform the work of Methyl Bromide Technical
Options Committee, including expertise in the field of agricultural economy, technology transfer
and regulatory processes of registration;
(f) The criteria and procedure for selecting the experts, including ensuring a balance between experts
from Article 5 and non-Article 5 Parties, pursuant to the qualification requirements as set forth in
subparagraph (e) above;
(g) Further guidance on the application of the criteria set forth in decision IX/6;
(h) The modalities for the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to submit annual work plans
to the Meeting of the Parties;
(i) The instances where the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee should seek the guidance of
the Meeting of the Parties in conducting its work;
(j) Modalities for the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to provide the Meeting of the
Parties with budget proposals for the conduct of the Committee’s work through the Secretariat;
3. To establish to that end an ad hoc working group which shall meet for three days immediately prior to the
twenty-fourth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and shall comprise 12 representatives of
Article 5 Parties and 12 representatives of non-Article 5 Parties;
4. To invite the co-chairs of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to participate in the meeting
of the ad hoc working group;
5. That the ad hoc working group should base its discussions on the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee-related elements and issues set forth in paragraph 2 above and shall report its findings and
recommendations to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-fourth session;
294
6. To request the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-fourth session to formulate recommendations for
the consideration and approval of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties and to identify which elements, if
any, could be used on an interim basis pending approval by the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties;
7. That the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee should continue to assess the nominations as
“recommended”, “not recommended” or “unable to assess”.
8. That the reports of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide Technical
Options Committee, to be published following those bodies’ initial assessment of nominations submitted
in 2004 and following the subsequent assessment of any additional information submitted by nominating
Parties, should include:
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
(a) If the Panel and Committee do not recommend any part of a nomination, a clear description of the
nominating Party’s request for an exemption and of the reasons why the Panel and Committee did
not accept it, including references to the relevant studies, wherever available, used as the basis for
such a decision;
(b) If the Panel and Committee require additional information, a clear description of the information
required.
Decision XVI/4: Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl
Reaffirming that each Party should aim significantly and progressively to decrease its production and
soon as technically and economically feasible alternatives are available for critical uses in the circumstances of
the nominations according to decision IX/6,
To adopt the elements related to procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee related to the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide as set out in annex I to
the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook].
Decision XVI/5: Provision of financial assistance to the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee
Noting the heavy workload faced by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee in its role under its
renewed working procedures for the assessment of nominations for critical-use exemptions,
Acknowledging that a significant proportion of the Committee’s administrative burden in conducting this work
falls to the co-chairs of the Committee,
Acknowledging the greater levels of detail and transparency that are requested by the Parties to be applied to the
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee’s reports on its assessment of those nominations,
Noting that the current workload of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee in conducting its
assessment of the present high numbers of critical-use nominations to the standards directed by the Parties
represents an exceptional circumstance that will not continue indefinitely, and for which the associated
administrative burden for the Committee could reasonably be expected to reduce in the near term,
1. To provide financial support to the positions of one co-chair from a Party operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 and one co-chair from a Party not so operating of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee to cover the costs of their travel and accommodation for attendance at those meetings related
to the Committee’s assessment of critical-use nominations;
295
2. Also to provide financial support to the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee’s co-chairs, to
facilitate expert assistance in the initial summarization of critical-use nominations to facilitate the Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee’s timely and more detailed assessment of the nominations’ claims
against the criteria of decision IX/6, and expert assistance with the preparation of the Methyl Bromide
Technical Options Committee’s reports on its assessment of the critical-use nominations, so as to ensure
that such reports provide sufficient levels of transparency and detail to meet the requirements of the
Parties;
3. That the financial support referred to in paragraph 2 of the present decision would not exceed the
equivalent of 12 months full time salary for one P-3 level position, and would be allocated between the
components identified in paragraph 2 at the discretion of the Technology and Economic Assessment
MP DECISIONS
Panel;
ARTICLE 6
4. To authorize as a transitional measure to enable the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to
adapt to a new pattern of its meetings arising out of its renewed working procedures, the Secretariat to
meet upon request the expenses, i.e., daily subsistence allowance and travel, for the attendance of
members of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee in its meetings on the assessment of the
critical-use exemption nominations, which they are unable to defray during 2005, while taking into
account the practice on the standards of accommodation for the travels of independent experts attending
official meetings of the Protocol;
5. To provide the necessary technical and financial assistance to the co-chairs of the Methyl Bromide
Technical Options Committee, funds permitting, with respect to:
(a) Their site visits where necessary for the verification of the basis for nominations of critical-use
exemptions, and
(b) Strengthening the liaison function of the Secretariat with the members of the Methyl Bromide
6. That the financial support referred to in paragraphs 1–5 of the present decision would be provided within
the existing level of budgetary provisions drawn from the Trust Fund of the Montreal Protocol for the
2005 budget to meet the expenses required above;
7. That the temporary financial support referred to in paragraphs 1–5 of the present decision would initially
be provided only for 2005, with any proposal for similar support to be provided in subsequent years
requiring the separate consideration and agreement of the Parties;
8. To encourage Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol to continue offering
assistance to their members in the three Panels and their subsidiary bodies for their continued
participation in the assessment activities under the Protocol.
Decision XVIII/19: Guidelines for disclosure of interest for groups such as the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees
Recalling decision VIII/19,
Acknowledging the valuable contribution of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, the technical
options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies in their role of providing analysis and presenting technical
information to the Montreal Protocol,
Noting the code of conduct for the members of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, technical
options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies adopted in annex V to the report of the Eighth Meeting of
the Parties,
Recognizing the need to update paragraphs 5 and 6 of the code of conduct,
296
1. To replace paragraphs 5 and 6 of the code of conduct [see Section 3.4 in this Handbook]with the
following paragraphs:
“5. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, the technical options committee and the
temporary subsidiary body members shall disclose activities, including business, government or
financial interests in the production of ozone-depleting substances, their alternatives, and products
containing ozone depleting substances or their alternatives, which might call into question their
ability to discharge their duties and responsibilities objectively. The Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, technical options committee and temporary subsidiary body members must
annually disclose such activities. They must also disclose any financing from a company engaged in
commercial activities for their participation in the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, the
technical options committees or any temporary subsidiary body. An illustrative list of interests is
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
provided in the annex to the present code of conduct.
A conflict of interest would only arise when an interest of a Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel, a technical options committee, or a temporary subsidiary body member, his or her personal
partner or dependant would influence the expert’s work as a member with respect to the subject
matter being considered.
Should there be a likelihood of a conflict of interest, a member shall take appropriate action. Such
action could include seeking the advice of the co-chair or not fully participating in the determination
of an issue or not participating at all in the determination of an issue.
The co–chair(s) shall seek to avoid conflicts of interest. This could include requesting a member to
take appropriate action, such as requesting a member to take no role or a restricted role in the
determination of an item. In the case of a serious conflict of interest, where a member has been
nominated by a Party, that Party shall be advised by the co-chair(s) of the conflict at the earliest
opportunity. Cases of conflicts or likely conflicts of interest relating to the co-chairs should be raised
with the President of the Meeting of the Parties.
6. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is responsible for the interpretation of the code of
conduct and the members of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, technical options
committees and temporary subsidiary bodies for its application. The Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel shall publish in annual reports descriptions of the financial and other relevant
interests. As well, such reports shall include a brief description of conflicts or likely conflicts that
arose in the year, the matter they were related to, whether any Parties were involved and how they
were resolved.
Annex
The following is an illustrative list of the types of interests that should be disclosed:
(a) A current proprietary interest of a member or his/her personal partner or dependant in a substance,
technology or process (e.g., ownership of a patent) to be considered by the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel or any of its technical options committees or temporary subsidiary
bodies;
(b) A current financial interest of a member or his/her personal partner or dependant, e.g., shares or
bonds in an entity with an interest in the subject matter of the meeting or work (but not
shareholdings through general mutual funds or similar arrangements where the expert has no control
over the selection of shares);
(c) A current employment, consultancy, directorship, or other position held by a member or his/her
personal partner or dependant, whether or not paid, in any entity which has an interest in the subject
matter of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. This element of disclosure also includes
paid consultancy efforts performed on behalf of an implementing agency to assist developing
countries to adopt alternatives;
297
(d) The provision of advice on significant issues to a government with respect to its implementation of
the Montreal Protocol or engaging in the development of significant policy positions of a
government for a Montreal Protocol meeting;
(e) Performance of any paid research activities or receipt of any fellowships or grants for work related
to a proposed use of an ozone-depleting substance or an alternative to a proposed use of an ozone-
depleting substance.”
Decision XIX/20: Terms of reference for the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Environmental
Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
and their colleagues worldwide in preparing their 2006 assessment reports, including the 2007 synthesis
report;
Twenty-third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2011;
3. To request the assessment panels to keep the Parties to the Montreal Protocol informed of any important
new developments;
4. That for the 2010 report the Scientific Assessment Panel should consider issues including:
(a) Assessment of the state of the ozone layer and its future evolution;
(b) Evaluation of the Antarctic ozone hole and Arctic ozone depletion and the predicted changes in
these phenomena;
(c) Evaluation of the trends in the concentration of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere and
their consistency with reported production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances and the
likely implications for the state of the ozone layer;
(d) Assessment of the interaction between climate change and changes on the ozone-layer;
(e) Assessment of the interaction between tropospheric and stratospheric ozone,
(f) Description and interpretation of the observed changes in global and polar ozone and in ultraviolet
radiation, as well as future projections and scenarios for those variables, taking into account among
other things the expected impacts of climate change;
(g) Assessment of consistent approaches to evaluating the impact of very short-lived substances,
including potential replacements, on the ozone layer;
(h) Identification and reporting, as appropriate, on any other threats to the ozone layer;
5. That the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel should consider the following issues for future updates
and the 2010 report:
(a) Continued identification of the environmental impacts of ozone depletion and the environmental
impacts of the interaction of ozone depletion and climate change for all areas that are assessed;
(b) Assessment of the effects on human health from stratospheric ozone depletion;
298
(c) Assessment of the impact of increased UV-B radiation on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and
their interactions with each other and biogeochemical cycles;
(d) Impact of stratospheric ozone depletion on the troposphere and its implications for the environment;
(e) Assessment of the significance of UV-B radiation on materials;
6. That the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should, among other matters, consider the
following topics:
(a) The impact of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances on sustainable development, particularly
MP DECISIONS
in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and countries with economies in transition;
ARTICLE 6
(b) Technical progress in all sectors;
(c) Technically and economically feasible choices for the reduction and elimination of ozone-depleting
substances through the use of alternatives, taking into account their impact on climate change and
overall environmental performance;
(d) Technical progress on the recovery, reuse and destruction of ozone-depleting substances;
(e) Accounting for the production and use in various applications of ozone-depleting substances, ozone-
depleting substances in inventories, ozone-depleting substances in products and the production and
use in various applications of very short-lived substances;
(f) Accounting of emissions of all relevant ozone-depleting substances with a view to updating
continuously use patterns and coordinating such data with the Scientific Assessment Panel in order
periodically to reconcile estimated emissions and atmospheric concentrations.
Decision XXII/22: Membership changes on the assessment panels
7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees to draw
up guidelines for the nomination of experts by the parties, in accordance with section 2.9 of the terms of
reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, for presentation to the parties prior to the
thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;
8. To request that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel consider the need for balance and
appropriate expertise when appointing members of the technical options committees, task forces and
other subsidiary groups in accordance with sections 2.1, 2.5 and 2.8 of the terms of reference of the Panel.
[The remainder of this decision is located below under ‘Decisions on appointment of co-chairs of assessment
panels’]
Decision XXIII/10: Updating the nomination and operational processes of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel and its subsidiary bodies
Recalling the terms of reference for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel set forth in decision
VIII/19 and amended by decision XVIII/19,
Recalling also decision VII/34 on the organization and functioning of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel and specifically on efforts to increase the participation of experts from parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 (Article 5 parties) and to improve geographical expertise and balance,
Recalling in particular section 2.1 of the terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
on the size and balance of the Panel, and the need to promote a membership that balances geography and
299
expertise, including the overall goal of achieving a representation of about 50 per cent for experts from Article 5
parties in the Panel and its technical options committees,
Recognizing the need for the process and criteria for the appointment of experts to the Panel to be transparent
and equitable,
Recalling sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, on
nominations to the Panel and appointment of members to the Panel, and specifically the provision that any
nominations made by the Panel are to be communicated to the relevant party for consultation before
recommendations for appointment are made,
MP DECISIONS
Recognizing the need for parties to receive from the Panel advice of the highest quality and to ensure that
ARTICLE 6
changes to the nomination process do not have an adverse effect on the expertise of the Panel or the quality of its
advice,
Taking note of the information provided by the Panel in its 2011 progress report, in particular in response to
decision XXII/22,
1. To request the Panel to compose its technical options committees and its temporary subsidiary bodies to
reflect a balance of appropriate expertise so that their reports and information are comprehensive,
objective, and policy neutral and to provide a description in reports by temporary subsidiary bodies on
how their composition was determined;
2. To request the Panel to update its matrix of needed capabilities calling for expertise on the Panel, its
technical options committees and its temporary subsidiary bodies twice a year and to publish the matrix
on the Secretariat website and in the Panel’s annual progress reports; this matrix should include the need
for geographic and expertise balance;
3. Also to request the Panel to ensure that the information in the matrix is clear and sufficient to allow a full
understanding of needed expertise and that information on the nomination process, the selection process,
the Panel’s terms of reference and the operation of the Panel and its subsidiary bodies is published on the
Secretariat website in an easily accessible format;
4. Further to request the Panel to standardize the information required from potential experts for all
nominations to the Panel, its technical options committees and its temporary subsidiary bodies in line
with section 9.5.4 of the 2011 progress report, and to prepare a draft nomination form for consideration
by the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting;
5. To request the Panel to ensure that all nominations for appointments to the Panel, including co-chairs of
the technical options committee, are agreed to by the national focal points of the relevant party;
6. To request the Panel to ensure that all nominations to its technical options committees and its temporary
subsidiary bodies have been made in full consultation with the national focal points of the relevant party;
7. That all appointments to the Panel, and its technical options committees, including those of co-chairs,
should be for a period of no more than four years;
8. That members of the Panel or of the technical options committee may be re-nominated for additional
periods of up to four years each;
9. That the terms of all the members of the Panel and its technical options committees shall otherwise expire
at the end of 2013 and 2014, respectively, in the absence of reappointment by the parties prior to that
time, except for those experts that have already been nominated for four-year periods in past decisions;
10. That parties may revisit the status of the Panel and its technical options committee membership at the
Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Meetings of the Parties respectively if more time is needed by the parties
to submit nominations;
300
11. To invite the parties having co-chairs and members currently serving on the Panel and its technical
options committees to submit re-nominations for those experts in line with paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the
present decision for consideration at the Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Meetings of the Parties
respectively;
12. That a decision of the parties is required to confirm any re-appointment to the Panel;
13. That a decision of the parties is required to confirm any temporary subsidiary body that exists for a period
of more than one year;
14. That the parties should confirm, every four years, beginning in 2012, the list of technical options
MP DECISIONS
committees needed to meet the parties’ requirements;
ARTICLE 6
15. That the Ozone Secretariat should attend the meetings of the Panel whenever possible and appropriate to
provide ongoing institutional advice on administrative issues when necessary;
16. To request the Panel to ensure that all new technical options committee members are properly informed
of the Panel’s terms of reference, its code of conduct contained in the Panel’s terms of reference, relevant
decisions of the parties and Panel operational procedures and are requested to abide by that guidance;
17. To request the Panel to revise its draft guidelines on recusal, taking into account similar guidelines in
other multilateral forums, and provide them to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second
meeting for consideration by the parties;
18. To request the Panel to prepare guidelines, for the appointment of the co-chairs of the Panel and to
provide them to Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting for consideration by the parties;
19. To request the Panel to consider the number of members of each of its subsidiary bodies to ensure that
their membership is consistent with each of the subsidiary bodies’ workload and to propose revision to
their numbers to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting for the consideration of the
parties, taking into account the need for geographical balance in accordance with decision VII/34;
20. To request the Panel to update its terms of reference in accordance with this decision and submit it to the
Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting for consideration by the parties;
21. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel not to apply the guidelines mentioned in
paragraphs 17 and 18 until they are approved by the parties.
Decision XXIII/13: Potential areas of focus for the 2014 quadrennial reports of the Scientific
Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and
1. To note with appreciation the excellent and highly useful work of the Scientific Assessment Panel, the
Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and their
colleagues worldwide in preparing their 2010 assessment reports, including the 2011 synthesis report;
Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties in 2015;
3. That for its 2014 report, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel should consider the most recent
scientific information regarding effects on human health and the environment of changes in the ozone
layer and in ultraviolet radiation, including:
(a) Effects of ultraviolet radiation reaching the biosphere and how those effects relate to physical,
biological and environmental processes;
301
(b) Adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation on human health, including cancers, eye damage, infectious
and other diseases and the beneficial effects of ultraviolet radiation;
(c) Effects on the biodiversity and functioning of ecosystems, including the delivery of ecosystem
services such as food production;
(d) Effects of ultraviolet radiation on materials, including materials used in building construction;
(e) Risks to human health and the environment from substances that affect the ozone layer;
4. That the 2014 report of the Scientific Assessment Panel should include:
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
(a) Assessment of the state of the ozone layer and its future evolution, including in respect of
atmospheric changes from, for example, sudden stratospheric warming or accelerated
Brewer-Dobson circulation;
(b) Evaluation of the Antarctic ozone hole and Arctic winter/spring ozone depletion and the predicted
changes in these phenomena, with a particular focus on temperatures in the polar stratosphere;
(c) Evaluation of trends in the concentration in the atmosphere of ozone-depleting substances and their
consistency with reported production and consumption of those substances and the likely
implications for the state of the ozone layer and the atmosphere;
(d) Assessment of the interaction between the ozone layer and the atmosphere; including:
(i) The effect of polar ozone depletion on tropospheric climate;
(ii) The effects of atmosphere-ocean coupling;
(e) Description and interpretation of observed ozone changes and ultraviolet radiation, along with future
projections and scenarios for those variables, taking into account among other things the expected
impacts to the atmosphere;
(f) Assessment of the effects of ozone-depleting substances and other ozone-relevant substances, if any,
with stratospheric influences, and their degradation products, the identification of such substances,
their ozone-depletion potential and other properties;
(g) Identification of any other threats to the ozone layer;
5. That in its 2014 report the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should consider the following
topics:
(a) Technical progress in all consumption sectors and destruction of ozone-depleting substances;
(b) Accounting for production and consumption for the various applications of ozone-depleting
substances;
(c) Technically and economically feasible alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, in consumption

sectors taking into account their overall performance;
(d) Status of banks containing ozone-depleting substances, including those maintained for essential and
critical uses, and the options available for handling them;
(e) Challenges facing parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol in
phasing out remaining ozone-depleting substances such as methyl bromide and maintaining the
phase-outs already achieved.
302
Decision XXIV/8: Terms of reference, code of conduct and disclosure and conflict of interest
guidelines for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options
committees and temporary subsidiary bodies
Taking note of paragraph 17 of decision XXIII/10, in which the parties requested the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel to revise its draft guidelines on recusal, taking into account similar guidelines in other
multilateral forums, and provide them to the Open-ended Working Group for consideration at its thirty-second
meeting,
MP DECISIONS
Taking note also of the terms of reference of the Panel as set out in annex V of the report of the Eighth Meeting
ARTICLE 6
of the Parties, as amended by decision XVIII/19,
Taking note further of decision XXIII/10, in which the parties requested the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel to propose an update to its terms of reference,
Recalling decision VII/34 on the organization and functioning of the Panel and specifically on efforts to increase
the participation of experts from parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in order to improve
geographical expertise and balance,
Noting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has established a conflict of interest committee and
the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee has adopted a procedure for
dealing with conflicts of interest,
Bearing in mind that the role of the Panel, its technical options committees and its temporary subsidiary bodies
makes it essential to avoid even the appearance of any conflict between individual members’ interests and their
duties as Panel members,
Bearing in mind also that it is in the interest of the Panel, its technical options committees and its temporary
subsidiary bodies to maintain public confidence in its integrity by adhering closely to its terms of reference,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to make recommendations on the future
configuration of its technical options committees to the Open-Ended Working Group at its thirty-third
meeting, bearing in mind anticipated workloads;
2. To approve the terms of reference and the conflict of interest and disclosure policy for the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel, its technical options committees and any temporary subsidiary bodies
set up by those bodies set out in the annex to the present decision in place of the terms of reference set out
in annex V to the report of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties, as amended;
3. To request that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees
make available to the parties their standard operating procedures.
Annex
1. Scope of work
The tasks undertaken by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) are those specified in Article
6 of the Montreal Protocol in addition to those requested from time to time at Meetings of the Parties. TEAP
analyses and presents technical information and recommendations when specifically requested. It does not
evaluate policy issues and does not recommend policy. TEAP presents technical and economic information
relevant to policy. Furthermore, TEAP does not judge the merit or success of national plans, strategies, or
regulations.
To carry out its work programme, technical options committees (TOCs) are established and agreed to by a
decision of the parties. TEAP may also establish temporary subsidiary bodies (TSBs), as needed. These bodies
303
generally will not last for more than one year and are aimed at responding to specific requests made by the
parties.
2.1 Size and balance
2.1.0
The overall goal is to achieve a representation of about 50 per cent for Article 5(1) Parties in the TEAP and
TOCs and appropriate representation of expertise in the different alternatives.
2.1.1 TEAP
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
The membership size of the TEAP should be about 18-22 members, including 2 or 3 co-chairs to allow it to
function effectively. It should include the co-chairs of the TOCs; there should be two co-chairs per TOC and 2-4
Senior Experts for specific expertise not covered by the TEAP co-chairs or TOC co-chairs, taking into account
gender and geographical balance.
At least one and preferably all of the TEAP co-chairs should not simultaneously serve as a TOC co-chair.
2.1.2 TOCs
Each TOC should have two co-chairs. The positions of TOC co-chairs must be filled to promote a geographical,
gender and expertise balance. TEAP, through its TOC co-chairs, shall compose its TOCs to reflect a balance of
appropriate and anticipated expertise so that their reports and information are comprehensive, objective and
policy-neutral.
2.1.3 TSBs
TEAP, in consultation with the TSB co-chairs, shall compose its TSBs to reflect a balance of appropriate
expertise so that their reports and information are comprehensive, objective and policy-neutral. TEAP, acting
through the TSB co-chairs, shall provide a description in reports by TSBs on how their composition was
determined. TSB members, including co-chairs, who are not already members of the TEAP, do not become
members of the TEAP by virtue of their service on the TSB.
2.2 Nominations
2.2.1 TEAP
Nominations of members to the TEAP, including co-chairs of the TEAP and TOCs, must be made by individual
Parties to the Secretariat through their respective national focal points. Such nominations will be forwarded to
the Meeting of the Parties for consideration. The TEAP co-chairs shall ensure that any potential nominee
identified by TEAP for appointment to the Panel, including co-chairs of TEAP and the TOCs, is agreed to by the
national focal points of the relevant party. A member of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs shall not be a current
representative of a party to the Montreal Protocol.
2.2.2. TOCs and TSBs
All nominations to TOCs and TSBs shall be made in full consultation with the national focal point of the
relevant party.
Nominations of members to a TOC (other than TOC co-chairs) may be made by individual parties or TEAP and
TOC co-chairs may suggest to individual parties experts to consider nominating. Nominations to a TSB
(including TSB co-chairs) can be made by the TEAP Co-chairs
2.3 Appointment of members of TEAP
In keeping with the intent of the parties for a periodic review of the composition of the assessment panel, the
Meeting of the Parties shall appoint the members of TEAP for a period of no more than four years. The Meeting
of the Parties may re-appoint Members of the Panel upon nomination by the relevant party for additional periods
304
of up to four years each. In appointing or re-appointing members of TEAP, the parties should ensure continuity,
balance as well as a reasonable turnover.
2.4 Co-chairs
In nominating and appointing co-chairs of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs, parties should consider the following factors:
(a) Co-chairs should have experience or skills in managing, coordinating, and building consensus in technical
bodies, in addition to possessing technical expertise in relevant areas;
(b) The co-chairs of a TOC should not normally act as co-chairs of another TOC; and
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
(c) The co-chairs of TEAP should not be co-chairs of a TOC;
(d) The TEAP and TOC co-chairs may suggest to individual parties experts to consider nominating.
2.5 Appointment of members of TOCs
Each TOC should have about 20 members. The TOC members are appointed by the TOC co-chairs, in
consultation with TEAP, for a period of no more than four years. TOC members may be re-appointed following
the procedure for nominations for additional periods of up to four years each.
2.6 Subsidiary bodies
Temporary Subsidiary Technical Bodies (TSBs) can be appointed by TEAP to report on specific issues of
limited duration. TEAP may appoint and dissolve, subject to review by the parties, such subsidiary bodies of
technical experts when they are no longer necessary. For issues that cannot be handled by the existing TOCs and
are of substantial and continuing nature, TEAP should request the establishment by the parties of a new TOC. A
decision of the Meeting of the Parties is required to confirm any TSB that exists for a period of more than one
year.
2.7 Termination of appointment
Members of TEAP, a TOC or a TSB may relinquish their position at any time by notifying in writing as
appropriate the co-chairs of the TEAP, TOC or TSB and the relevant party.
TEAP can dismiss a member of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs, including co-chairs of those bodies, by a two-
thirds majority vote of TEAP. A dismissed member has the right to appeal to the next Meeting of the Parties
through the Secretariat. The TEAP co-chairs will inform the relevant party if TEAP is dismissing members.
2.8 Replacement
If a member of TEAP, including TOC co-chairs, relinquishes or is unable to function including if he or she was
dismissed by TEAP, the Panel, after consultation with the nominating party. can temporarily appoint a
replacement from among its bodies for the time up to the next Meeting of the Parties, if necessary to complete its
work. For the appointment of a replacement TEAP member, the procedure set out in paragraph 2.2 should be
followed.
2.9 Guidelines for nominations and matrix of expertise
The TEAP/TOCs will draw up guidelines for nominating experts by the parties. The TEAP/TOCs will publicize
a matrix of expertise available and the expertise needed in the TEAP/TOCs so as to facilitate submission of
appropriate nominations by the parties. The matrix must include the need for geographic and expertise balance
and provide consistent information on expertise that is available and required. The matrix would include the
name and affiliation and the specific expertise required including on different alternatives. The TEAP/TOCs,
acting through their respective co-chairs, shall ensure that the matrix is updated at least once a year and shall
publish the matrix on the Secretariat website and in the Panel’s annual progress reports. The TEAP/TOCs shall
also ensure that the information in the matrix is clear, sufficient and consistent as far as is appropriate between
the TEAP and TOCs and balanced to allow a full understanding of needed expertise.
305
3. Functioning of TEAP/TOCs/TSBs
3.1 Language
TEAP/TOCs/TSBs meetings will be held and reports and other documents will be produced only in English.
3.2 Meetings
3.2.1 Scheduling
The place and time of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs meetings will be fixed by the co-chairs.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
3.2.2 Secretariat
The Ozone Secretariat should attend the meetings of the TEAP whenever possible and appropriate to provide
ongoing institutional advice on administrative issues when necessary.
3.2.3 Operating procedures
Co-chairs of the TOCs should organize meetings in accordance with operating procedures developed by the
TOCs in consultation with the Secretariat to ensure full participation of all members, sound and appropriate
decision-making and record keeping. The procedures should be updated periodically and made available to the
parties.
3.3 Rules of procedure
The rules of procedure of the Montreal Protocol for committees and working groups will be followed in
conducting the meetings of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs, unless otherwise stated in these terms of reference for
TEAP/TOCs/TSBs or other decisions approved by a Meeting of the Parties.
3.4 Observers
No observers will be permitted at TEAP, TOC or TSB meetings. However, anyone can present information to
the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs with prior notice and can be heard personally if the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs consider it
necessary.
3.5 Functioning by members
The TEAP/TOCs/TSBs members function on a personal basis as experts, irrespective of the source of their
nominations and accept no instruction from, nor function as representatives of Governments, industries, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) or other organizations.
4. Report of TEAP/TOCs/TSBs
4.1 Procedures
The reports of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs will be developed through a consensus process. The reports must reflect
any minority views appropriately.
4.2 Access
Access to materials and drafts considered by the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs will be available only to TEAP/TOCs
members or others designated by TEAP/TOCs/TSBs.
4.3 Review by TEAP
The final reports of TOCs and TSBs will be reviewed by the TEAP and will be forwarded, without modification
(other than editorial or factual corrections which have been agreed with the co-chairs of the relevant TOC or
TSB) by TEAP to the Meeting of the Parties, together with any comments TEAP may wish to provide. Any
306
factual errors in the reports may be rectified through a corrigendum following publication, upon receipt by
TEAP or the TOC of supporting documentation.
4.4 Comment by public
Any member of the public can comment to the co-chairs of the TOCs and TSBs with regard to their reports and
they must respond as early as possible. If there is no response, these comments can be sent to the TEAP co-
chairs for consideration by TEAP.
5. Code of conduct for Members of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and
its bodies
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
Code of Conduct
Members of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs have been asked by the parties to undertake important
responsibilities. As such, a high standard of conduct defined in accordance with the principles of transparency,
predictability, accountability, trustworthiness, integrity, responsibility and disclosure is expected of members in
discharging their duties. In order to assist members, the following guidelines have been developed as a Code of
Conduct that must be followed by the members of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs.
1. This Code of Conduct is intended to protect Members of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs from conflicts of
interest in their participation. Compliance with the measures detailed in these guidelines is a condition for
serving as a Member of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs.
2. The Code is to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the process while encouraging experienced
and competent persons to accept TEAP, TOC and/or TSB membership by:
(a) Establishing clear guidelines respect to conflict of interest and disclosure while and after serving as a
member; and
(b) Minimizing the possibility of conflicts arising between the private interest and public duties of members
and by providing for the resolution of such conflicts, in the public interest, should they arise.
3. In carrying out their duties, members shall:
(a) Perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in such a manner that public confidence and
trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs are conserved and
enhanced;
(b) Act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by
simply acting within the law of any country;
(c) Act in good faith for the best interest of the process;
(d) Exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable
circumstances;
(e) Not give preferential treatment to anyone or any interest in any official manner related to TEAP, the
TOCs or the TSBs;
(f) Not solicit or accept significant gifts, hospitality or other benefits from persons, groups or organizations
having or likely to have dealings with TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs;
(g) Not accept transfers of economic benefit, other than incidental gifts, customary hospitality or other
benefits of nominal value, unless the transfer is pursuant to an enforceable contract or property right of the
member;
(h) Not represent or assist any outside interest in dealings before TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs;
307
(i) Not knowingly take advantage of, or benefit from, information that is obtained in the course of their
duties and responsibilities as a member of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs, and that is not generally
available to the public; and
(j) Not act, after their term of office as members of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs in such a manner as to take
improper advantage of their previous office.
4. To avoid the possibility or appearance that members of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs might receive
preferential treatment, members shall not seek preferential treatment for themselves or third parties or act
as paid intermediaries for third parties in dealings with TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs.
6. Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Guidelines for the Technology and Economic
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
Assessment Panel, Its Technical Options Committees and Temporary Subsidiary Bodies
Definitions
1. For the purposes of these Guidelines:
(a) “Conflict of interest” means any current interest of a member, or of that member’s personal partner or
dependant which, in the opinion of a reasonable person does or appears to:
(i) Significantly impair that individual’s objectivity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities for TEAP,
the TOC or the TSB; or
(ii) Create an unfair advantage for any person or organization;
(b) “Member” means member including co-chairs of TEAP, the TOCs and/or the TSBs;
(c) “Recusal” means that a member does not participate in particular elements of TEAP, TOC or TSB work
because of a conflict of interest; and
(d) “Conflict resolution advisory body” means the body appointed under paragraph 22.
Purposes
2. The overall purpose of these Guidelines is to protect the legitimacy, integrity, trust, and credibility of the
TEAP, TOCS and TSBs and of those directly involved in the preparation of reports and activities.
3. The role of the TEAP, TOCs and TSBs demands that they pay special attention to issues of independence
and bias in order to maintain the integrity of, and public confidence in, their products and processes. It is
essential that the work of TEAP and its TOCs and TSBs is not compromised by any conflict of interest.
4. Written agreement to comply with these Guidelines is a condition for service as a Member.
5. These Guidelines are to enhance public confidence in the process, while encouraging experienced and
competent persons to serve on the TEAP, TOC and/or TSB, by:
(a) Establishing clear guidance with respect to disclosure and conflict of interest while serving as a Member;
(b) Minimizing the possibility of conflicts of interest arising with respect to Members, and by providing for
the resolution of such conflicts, in the public interest, should they arise; and
(c) Finding the balance between the needs:
(i) To identify the appropriate disclosure requirements, and
(ii) To ensure the integrity of the TEAP process.
308
6. These Guidelines are principle-based and do not provide an exhaustive list of criteria for the identification
of conflicts.
7. TEAP, the TOCS, the TSBs and their members should not be in a situation that could lead a reasonable
person to question, and perhaps discount or dismiss, their work because of the existence of a conflict of
interest.
Disclosure
8. Members are to disclose annually any potential conflicts of interest. They must also disclose the source of
any funding for their participation in the work of the TEAP, TOC and/or TSB. An illustrative list of other
interests that should be disclosed is provided in Annex A to these Guidelines.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
9. Members are to disclose any material change to previously submitted information within 30 days of any
such change.
10. Notwithstanding paragraphs 8 and 9, a member may decline to disclose information related to activities,
interests and funding where its disclosure would adversely and materially affect:
(a) Defence, national security or imminent public safety;
(b) The course of justice in prospective or current court cases;
(c) The ability to assign future intellectual property rights; or
(d) The confidentiality of commercial, government, or industrial information.
11. Members who decline to disclose information under paragraph 10 must declare that they are doing so in
their disclosure of interest under paragraphs 8 or 9 and must be completely excluded from discussions and
decisions on related topics.
Conflict of interest
12. A member’s strong opinion (sometimes referred to as bias), or particular perspective, regarding a
particular issue or set of issues does not create a conflict of interest. It is expected that the TEAP, TOCs
and TSBs will include members with different perspectives and affiliations, which should be balanced so
far as possible.
13. These Guidelines apply only to current conflicts of interest. They do not apply to past interests that have
expired, no longer exist and cannot reasonably affect current assessment. Nor do they apply to possible
interests that may arise in the future but that do not currently exist, as such interests are inherently
speculative and uncertain. For example, a pending application for a particular job is a current interest, but
the mere possibility that one might apply for such a job in the future is not a conflict of interest.
Procedures
14. All of the bodies involved in advising on and deciding conflict of interest issues under these Guidelines
should consult the relevant member where the body has concerns about a potential conflict of interest
and/or where it requires clarification of any matters arising out of a member’s disclosure. Such bodies
should ensure that the relevant individuals and, where appropriate, the nominating Party, have an
opportunity to discuss any concerns about a potential conflict of interest.
15. In the event that an issue regarding a potential conflict of interest arises, the relevant member and co-
chairs should attempt to resolve the issue through consultations, including consultations with the advisory
body. If the consultations reach an impasse, TEAP could request the Executive Secretary to select an
outside mediator to assist in resolving the matter. The mediator should not be a member and should not
otherwise have any current affiliation with the relevant individuals, bodies or issues.
16. At any point, the conflict resolution advisory body may be consulted by members or potential members
regarding issues related to:
309
(a) Member disclosures;
(b) Potential conflicts of interest or other ethics issues; or
(c) Potential recusal of members.
17. The conflict resolution advisory body must promptly inform a member if it has been asked to advise on an
issue regarding the member. Any information provided to and any advice provided by the conflict
resolution advisory body will be considered confidential and will not be used for any purpose other than
consideration of conflict of interest issues under these Guidelines without the express consent of the
individual providing the information or requesting the advice, as appropriate.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
18. If an issue under these Guidelines cannot be resolved through the procedures in paragraphs 14 through 17:
(a) A TEAP member, including TEAP and TOC co-chairs, may be recused from a defined area of work only
by a three-fourths majority of TEAP (excluding the individual whose recusal is at issue).
(b) A TOC or TSB member, excluding TEAP and TOC co-chairs, may be recused from a defined area of
work by the co-chairs of the relevant TOC or, upon appeal, by a three-fourths majority of TEAP.
19. In the event of the procedure under the previous paragraph taking place, the Member whose recusal is at
issue may not participate. In the event that the matter is brought to the TEAP consistent with paragraph
18, the Member whose recusal is under discussion, should be excluded from those discussions.
Recusal
20. When a conflict of interest is determined to exist with respect to a particular Member, the Member should,
depending on what is appropriate in the circumstances, be:
(a) Excluded from decision-making and discussions related to a defined area of work;
(b) Excluded from decision-making but may participate in discussions related to a defined area of work; or
(c) Excluded from participation in the matter in any other manner deemed appropriate.
21. A Member who is recused completely or partially from an area of work may nevertheless answer
questions with respect to that work at the request of the TEAP, TOC or TSB.
Conflict resolution advisory body
22. The conflict resolution advisory body is not envisioned as a body that will meet on any regular basis but
will come together, physically or virtually, as needed to provide advice to members or potential members
and assist with resolving issues. It shall consist of Co-Chairs of the Open-Ended Working Group and the
President of the Bureau of the Meeting of the Parties, with the Ozone Secretariat providing logistical,
technical legal and administrative support and advice to the body. No additional travel support or other
financial support will be provided to members serving on the body.
Annex to the terms of reference
(a) A current proprietary interest of a member or his/her personal partner or dependent in a substance,
technology or process (e.g., ownership of a patent) to be considered by the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel or any of its technical options committees or temporary subsidiary bodies;
(b) A current financial interest of a member or his/her personal partner or dependent, e.g., shares or bonds in
an entity with an interest in the subject matter of the meeting or work (but not shareholdings through
general mutual funds or similar arrangements where the expert has no control over the selection of
shares);
310
(c) A current employment, consultancy, directorship or other position held by a Member or his/her personal
partner or dependent, whether or not paid, in any entity which has an interest in the subject matter of the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. This element of disclosure also includes paid consultancy
efforts performed on behalf of an implementing agency to assist developing countries to adopt
alternatives;
(d) The provision of advice on significant issues to a government with respect to its implementation of the
Montreal Protocol or engaging in the development of significant policy positions of a government for a
Montreal Protocol meeting;
(e) Performance of any paid research activities or receipt of any fellowships or grants for work related to a
proposed use of an ozone-depleting substance or an alternative to a proposed use of an ozone depleting
MP DECISIONS
substance.
ARTICLE 6
Decision XXV/6: Operation and organization of the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel
Taking note of decision XXIV/8, which updated the terms of reference for the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel,
Taking note also of the information provided by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in volume 3 of
its 2013 progress report,
Recognizing that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel has commenced implementation of its revised
terms of reference as approved by the parties in decision XXIV/8,
Recognizing also the need to consider adjustments to the technical options committees so as to reflect evolving
workloads, the need for relevant expertise, and the requirements of the parties,
1. To encourage the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue its implementation of the
revised terms of reference as approved by the parties in decision XXIV/8;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide the following information in its
2014 progress report:
(a) An update on its processes for the nomination of members to its technical options committees, taking into
account section 2.2.2 of its terms of reference;
(b) Its proposed configuration of the technical options committees from 1 January 2015 (for example, the
combination or division of the existing technical options committees, or maintaining the status quo
thereof);
(c) Options, if considered appropriate, to streamline the Panel’s annual technology updates to the parties.
Decision XXVII/6: Potential areas of focus for the 2018 quadrennial reports of the Scientific
Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and
in preparing their 2014 quadrennial assessment reports, including the 2015 synthesis report;
2. To request the three assessment panels to prepare quadrennial assessment reports in 2018, to submit them
to the Secretariat by 31 December 2018 for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group and by the
311
Thirty-First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2019 and to present a synthesis report by
30 April 2019, noting that the panels should continue to exchange information, including on all sectors,
on alternatives and on the issue of high-ambient temperatures, during the process of developing their
respective reports in order to provide comprehensive information to the parties to the Montreal Protocol;
3. To encourage the assessment panels to more closely involve relevant scientists from parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 with a view to promoting gender and regional balance, to the best of its
ability, in the work of producing the reports;
4. To encourage the assessment panels to use defined, consistent units and consistent terminology
throughout for better comparability;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
5. To request the assessment panels to bring to the notice of the parties any significant developments which,
in their opinion, deserve such notice, in accordance with decision IV/13;
6. To request the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, in drafting its 2018 report, to consider the most
recent scientific information regarding the effects on human health and the environment of changes in the
ozone layer and in ultraviolet radiation, together with future projections and scenarios for those variables,
taking into account those factors stipulated in Article 3 of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer;
7. To request the Scientific Assessment Panel to undertake, in its 2018 report, a review of the scientific
knowledge as dictated by the needs of the parties to the Montreal Protocol, as called for in the terms of
reference for the panels, taking into account those factors stipulated in Article 3 of the Vienna
Convention, including estimates of the levels of ozone-layer depletion attributed to the remaining
potential emissions of ozone-depleting substances and an assessment of the level of global emissions of
ozone-depleting substances below which the depletion of the ozone layer could be comparable to various
other factors such as the natural variability of global ozone, its secular trend over a decadal timescale and
the 1980 benchmark level;
8. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in its 2018 report, to consider the following
topics, among others:
(a) The impact of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances on sustainable development;
(b) Technical progress in the production and consumption sectors in the transition to alternatives and
practices that eliminate or minimize emissions to the atmosphere of ozone-depleting substances, taking
into account those factors stipulated in Article 3 of the Vienna Convention;
(c) Technically and economically feasible choices for the reduction and elimination of ozone-depleting
substances in all relevant sectors, including through the use of alternatives, taking into account their
performance, and technically and economically feasible alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in
consumption sectors, taking into account their overall performance;
(d) The status of banks containing ozone-depleting substances and their alternatives, including those
maintained for essential and critical uses, and the options available for handling them;
(e) Accounting for production and consumption for various applications and relevant sources of ozone-
depleting substances and their alternatives.
Decision XXVII/17: Ensuring the continuation of the work of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, its technical options committees, the Scientific Assessment Panel and the
Environmental Effects Assessment Panel
Noting with appreciation the excellent work conducted by the assessment panels at the request of the parties,
312
Noting the concerns expressed by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in the September 2015
addendum to its June 2015 progress report in relation to funding issues for some experts from parties not
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Recalling that the members of the assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies provide their expertise and work
on a voluntary basis,
Recalling also decision XVIII/5, in which the Meeting of the Parties encouraged parties, non-parties and other
stakeholders to contribute financially and with other means to assist members of the three assessment panels and
their subsidiary bodies for their continued participation in the assessment activities under the Protocol,
MP DECISIONS
Recalling further that nominations of experts to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its
ARTICLE 6
technical options committees are made in accordance with the terms of reference of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel,
Noting the existence of the means to receive voluntary contributions, separate from the trust funds for the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Vienna Convention for the Protection of
the Ozone Layer but managed by the Ozone Secretariat, for providing financial support for activities additional
to those covered by the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol trust funds;
1. To maintain the current financial support available for members of the assessment panels and their
subsidiary bodies from parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
2. To request parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 that nominate experts to the assessment
panels and their subsidiary bodies through their national focal points to obtain assurances or otherwise be
satisfied that the nominated experts will be able to carry out their duties, including attendance at relevant
meetings;
3. To invite parties to make voluntary contributions for the purpose of providing financial support, where
necessary, to members of the assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies from parties not operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in order to support their attendance at relevant meetings;
4. That the provision of the support referred to in the preceding paragraph does not detract from the
responsibility of a nominating party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to obtain assurances or
otherwise be satisfied that experts that they nominate have sufficient support to carry out their duties,
including attendance at relevant meetings;
5. To request the Ozone Secretariat to reinstitute administrative and organizational support for the work of
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in order to reduce the administrative burden on
assessment panel members where possible.
Decisions on appointment of co-chairs of assessment panels
Decision XVII/45: Endorsement of new co-chairs of the technical options committees of the
1. To endorse the following new Co-Chairs of the Technical Options Committees:
(a) Halon Technical Options Committee: David Catchpole and Dan Verdonik;
(b) Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee: Michelle Marcotte, Ian Porter, Mohamed Besri and
Marta Pizano;
(c) Chemicals Technical Options Committee: Ian Rae and Masaaki Yamabe;
313
2. To thank the following Co-Chairs who are stepping down from their positions, for their outstanding
efforts on behalf of the Montreal Protocol:
(a) Jonathan Banks (Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee);
(b) Nahum Marban-Mendoza (Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee).
Decision XVIII/4: Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee
The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVIII/4 to confirm Mr. Biao Jiang (China) as co-chair of
the Chemicals Technical Options Committee.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
Decision XIX/29: Selection of new co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel
1. To thank the following co-chairs who served as co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel since its
inception for their long and outstanding efforts on behalf of the Montreal Protocol:
(a) Mr. Daniel Albritton (United States of America);
(b) Mr. Robert Watson (United States of America);
2. To express sadness at the passing of Dr. Gérard Mégie (France) and admiration for his work as Co-Chair
of the Scientific Assessment Panel, in which capacity he guided the preparation of the Panel’s 1998 and
2002 assessment reports;
3. To select the following new co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel:
(a) Mr. John Pyle (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);
(b) Mr. Paul Newman (United States of America);
(c) Mr. A. R. Ravishankara (United States of America).
Decision XX/24: Endorsement of new co-chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee of
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
The Twentieth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XX/24 to endorse the selection of Mr. Sergey Kopylov
(Russian Federation) as the new Co-Chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee.
Decision XXI/13: Endorsement of the new co-chair of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and
Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
The Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXI/13 to endorse the selection of Mr. Roberto Peixoto
(Brazil) as the new Co-Chair of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options
Committee.
Decision XXII/22: Membership changes on the assessment panels
1. To thank Mr. Jan C. van der Leun, who has served as Co-Chair of the Environmental Effects Assessment
Panel since its inception, for his long and outstanding service on behalf of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To endorse Mr. Nigel D. Paul as Co-Chair of the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel;
314
3. To thank Mr. José Pons Pons for his long and outstanding service as Co-Chair of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel;
4. To endorse the selection of Ms. Marta Pizano as Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel for a term of four years, subject to re-endorsement by the parties in accordance with section 2.3 of
the terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;
5. To thank Mr. Thomas Morehouse for his long and outstanding service as a Senior Expert of the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and as a member and Co-Chair of the Halons Technical
Options Committee;
MP DECISIONS
6. To endorse the selection of Ms. Bella Maranion as a Senior Expert of the Technology and Economic
ARTICLE 6
Assessment Panel for a term of four years, subject to re-endorsement by the parties in accordance with
section 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel.
[The remainder of this decision is located above under ‘Decisions on establishment and organisation of
assessment panels’]
Decision XXIII/21: Endorsement of a new co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options

Committee and a senior expert of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
1. To thank Mr. Masaaki Yamabe (Japan) for his long and outstanding efforts on behalf of the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer as co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options
Committee;
2. To endorse Mr. Yamabe (Japan) as a senior expert of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
for a term of four years, subject to re-endorsement by the parties in accordance with section 2.3 of the
terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;
3. To endorse Mr. Keiichi Ohnishi (Japan), a member of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee, as a
new co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for a term of four years, subject to re-
endorsement by the parties in accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel.
Decision XXIV/19: Membership changes on the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
1. To thank the Technology and Assessment Panel for its outstanding reports and to thank the individual
members of the panel for their outstanding service and dedication;
2. To thank Mr. Stephen O. Andersen for his long and outstanding service as Co-Chair of the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel as he transitions to a role as a Senior Expert of the Panel;
3. To endorse the selection of Mr. Andersen as a Senior Expert of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel for a term of one year in accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of reference of the
Panel;
4. To endorse the selection of Ms. Bella Maranion as Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel for a term of four years in accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of reference of the
Panel;
5. To endorse the reappointment of Mr. Lambert J. M. Kuijpers as Co-Chair of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel and Co-Chair of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps
Technical Options Committee for a term of two years in accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of
reference of the Panel;
315
6. To endorse the reappointment of Mr. Daniel P. Verdonik to the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel as Co-Chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in accordance
with section 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Panel;
7. To endorse the reappointment of Mr. Ashley Woodcock to the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel as Co-Chair of the Medical Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in accordance
8. To endorse the reappointment of Mr. David Catchpole to the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel as Co-Chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in accordance
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
9. To endorse the reappointment of Mr. Paul Ashford to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as
Co-Chair of the Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in
accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Panel.
Decision XXIV/20: Endorsement of the new co-chair of the Environmental Effects Assessment
Panel
1. To thank Ms. Tang Xiaoyan (China), who served as co-chair of the Environmental Effects Assessment
Panel, for her long and outstanding service on behalf of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To endorse the selection of Mr. Shao Min (China) as the new co-chair of the Environmental Effects
Assessment Panel.
Decision XXV/7: Changes in the membership of the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel
1. To endorse the reappointment of:
(a) Ms. Helen Tope (Australia) to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as co-chair of the
Medical Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in accordance with section 2.3 of the
terms of reference of the Panel;
(b) Mr. Ian Porter (Australia) to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as co-chair of the Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in accordance with section 2.3 of the
(c) Mr. Roberto Peixoto (Brazil) to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as co-chair of the
Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in
accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Panel;
(d) Ms. Marta Pizano (Colombia) to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as co-chair of the
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in accordance with section 2.3 of
the terms of reference of the Panel;
(e) Mr. Miguel Wenceslao Quintero (Colombia) to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as co-
chair of the Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in
accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Panel;
(f) Mr. Mohamed Besri (Morocco) to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as co-chair of the
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in accordance with section 2.3 of
the terms of reference of the Panel;
316
(g) Mr. Sergey Kopylov (Russian Federation) to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as co-chair
of the Halons Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in accordance with section 2.3 of the
(h) Mr. José Pons Pons (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) to the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel as co-chair of the Medical Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in accordance
(i) Ms. Shiqiu Zhang (China) to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as a senior expert member
for a term of four years in accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Panel;
MP DECISIONS
2. To appoint:
ARTICLE 6
(a) Mr. Jianjun Zhang (China) to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as co-chair of the
Chemicals Technical Options Committee for a term of four years in accordance with section 2.3 of the
(b) Mr. Marco González (Costa Rica) to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel as a senior expert
member for a term of two years in accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Panel.
Decision XXVI/17: Membership changes in the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
1. To thank Mr. Lambert J. M. Kuijpers (Netherlands) for his long and outstanding service as Co-Chair of
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;
2. To endorse the reappointment of Mr. Kuijpers as a Co-Chair of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and
Heat Pumps Technology Options Committee for a transitional term of one year and to endorse the
appointment of Mr. Kuijpers as a Senior Expert of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for a
subsequent period of one year in accordance with paragraph 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Panel;
3. To endorse the appointment of Mr. Ashley Woodcock (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland) as Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for a term of four years in
accordance with paragraph 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Panel;
4. To endorse the re-appointment of Ms. Marta Pizano (Colombia) as Co-Chair of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel for a term of four years in accordance with paragraph 2.3 of the terms of
reference of the Panel;
5. To endorse the appointment of Mr. Fabio Polonara (Italy) to the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel and as a new Co-Chair of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options
Committee for a term of four years in accordance with paragraph 2.3 of the terms of reference of the
Panel.
Decision XXVII/15: Changes in the membership of the Scientific Assessment Panel
1. To thank the following scientific experts who have served as Co-Chairs of the Scientific Assessment
Panel for their long and outstanding efforts on behalf of the Montreal Protocol:
(a) Mr. Ayite-Lo Ajavon (Togo);
(b) Mr. A.R. Ravishankara (United States of America);
2. To endorse the appointment of the following new Co-Chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel:
317
Sectionn 2 Decisions
D of the M
Meetings of the Parties
P to the Mon
ntreal Protocol (AArticle 6)
(a) M
Mr. Bonfils Saffari (Rwanda);
(b) M
Mr. David Faheey (United Staates of Americca).
Decision
n XXVII/16: Technology
T y and Econo
omic Assess
sment Panel organizatio
onal and
memberrship chang ges
The Twennty-Seventh Meeting

M of the Parties
P decideed in Dec. XX
XVII/16:
1. Too thank the Teechnology andd Economic Asssessment Pan nel for its outsstanding reporrts and to than
nk the
inddividual membbers of the Paanel for their ooutstanding seervice and ded dication;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 6
To thank Mr. Masaaki Yamabe (Japan) for his lonng and outstan nding efforts on
o behalf of thhe Montreal Protocol
P
on Substaances that Depplete the Ozon
ne Layer as Seenior Expert of
o the Technollogy and Econnomic Assessm ment
Panel;
To endorse the appointtment of Mr. Marco

M uely Carvalhoo (Brazil) as Senior
Gonzallez (Costa Ricca) and Ms. Su
Experts ffor a two-year and a four-yeear term, respeectively;
To thank Mr. Lambert Kuijpers (the Netherlands)) for his long and
a outstandin
ng efforts on bbehalf of the Montreal
M
Protocol as Co-Chair of
o the Refrigerration, Air-Coonditioning an
nd Heat Pumpss Technical O
Options Comm mittee;
To thank Mr. Paul Ashhford (United Kingdom of G Great Britain and

a Northern Ireland) and MMr. Miguel Quintero
(Colombiia) for their loong and outstaanding efforts on behalf of the
t Montreal Protocol
P as Coo-Chairs of the Flexible
and Rigidd Foams Techhnical Options Committee;
To thank Mr. Ashley Woodcock

W (Unnited Kingdom m) and Mr. Jo
ose Pons Pons (Bolivarian R Republic of Veenezuela)
for their llong and outsttanding efforts on behalf off the Montreall Protocol as Co-Chairs
C the Medical Technical
of th
Options C Committee;
To encouurage the outgooing Co-Chairrs of the relevvant technical options comm

mittees to provvide support to
o the new
Co-Chairrs to ensure a smooth
s transittion;
To disbannd the Chemiccals Technicall Options Com mmittee and thhe Medical Teechnical Optioons Committee and to
establish a new techniccal options com
mmittee to bee called the Meedical and Ch
hemicals Techn
hnical Options
Committeee;
To endorse the appointtment of Ms. Helen

H Tope (A
Australia) as Co-Chair
C of th
he Medical and
nd Chemicals Technical
T
Options C
Committee forr a term of two years;
To endorse the appointtment of Mr. Keiichi

K Ohnisshi (Japan) andd Mr. Jianjun Zhang (Chinaa) as Co-Chairrs of the
Medical aand Chemicals Technical Options
O Comm
mittee for a terrm of four years.
318
Decisions on data-reporting formats and methodologies
Decision I/11: Report and confidentiality of data
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/11 with regard to report and confidentiality of data:
(a) that each Party is required to report its annual production, imports and exports of each individual
controlled substance;
MP DECISIONS
(b) that Parties submitting data on controlled substances deemed to be confidential by that Party shall, in
ARTICLE 7
submitting the data to the Secretariat, require a guarantee that the data will be treated with professional
secrecy and maintained confidential;
(c) that the Secretariat in preparing reports on data of controlled substances shall aggregate the data from
several Parties in such a way as to ensure that data from Parties deemed to be confidential is not
disclosed. The Secretariat shall also publish total data aggregated over all Parties for each individual
controlled substance;
(d) that Parties wishing to exercise their rights under Article 12, paragraph b of the Protocol may have access
from the Secretariat to confidential data from other Parties, provided that they send an application in
writing guaranteeing that such data will be treated with professional secrecy and not disclosed or
published in any way;
(e) that data submitted under Article 7 shall when necessary be made available on a confidential basis to
resolve disputes under Article 11 of the Convention.
Decision II/9: Data reporting
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/9:
to establish an ad hoc group of experts to consider the reasons leading to the difficulties faced by some countries
in reporting data as required by Article 7 of the Protocol and to recommend possible solutions to the Parties
concerned and to report on its progress to the Third Meeting of the Parties; and
to confirm that any data on consumption of the controlled substances that are submitted to the Secretariat as
required by Article 7 of the Protocol are not to be confidential.
(a) to note the progress made by the Implementation Committee and to urge strongly that the Parties that
have not yet done so should submit without delay the data required by the Montreal Protocol;
(b) that those States, not forming part of a regional economic integration organization, which had reported
data jointly in the past should submit separate data in the future, and do so, if appropriate, in the context
of Decision III/7(a);
(c) that the period for data reporting is 1 January to 31 December (Article 7, paragraph 2) and that the control
period is 1 July to 30 June (Article 2, paragraph 1) and to request the Parties to report the data for both
periods;
319
Decision III/7: Data reporting
(a) to note the report of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the Reporting of Data and the suggestions that it
contains, especially the recommendation that developing countries should inform the Secretariat of any
difficulties they face in reporting data, and invited any Party experiencing such difficulties to inform the
Secretariat, so that suitable measures can be taken to rectify the situation;
(b) developing countries with a per capita consumption figure which the Secretariat estimates at below 0.3
kilograms should be able to meet their obligation to report 1986 data by informing the Secretariat that
MP DECISIONS
they accept its estimate (UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.2/1/4, paragraph 14(e)).

ARTICLE 7
Decision III/9: Formats for reporting data under the amended Protocol
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/9 to adopt the revised formats for reporting data under the
amended Montreal Protocol, as contained in Annex XI of the report of the Third Meeting of the Parties.
Decision IV/9: Data and information reporting
1. to note with satisfaction that all the Parties that reported data met or exceeded their obligations for control
measures under Article 2 of the Protocol;
2. to urge all Parties that have not reported their data to the Secretariat to do so as soon as possible;
3. to encourage all Parties to adhere strictly to the reporting requirement under paragraph 3 of Article 7 of
the amended Protocol which provides, inter alia, that data shall be provided not later than nine months
after the end of the year to which the data relate;
4. to urge all Parties to insert further subdivisions to the recommended Harmonized System subheadings so
that imports and exports of each of the substances listed in the annexes of the Protocol as well as each of
the mixtures containing these substances can be accurately monitored in order to facilitate reporting of
data under Article 7 of the Protocol.
Decision V/5: Revised format for reporting of data under Article 7
The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/5 to approve the revised format for reporting of data under
Article 7 of the Protocol, as set out in Annex I to the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol.
Decision VII/20: Discrepancy between the data reported by a Party to the Ozone Secretariat and
the data presented by that Party to the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/20 to accept the recommendations of the Implementation
Committee:
(a) That the Secretariat should be entitled to seek clarification on data reported under Article 7 if there is a
discrepancy with the data in the country programme of the country concerned;
(b) That it should be established through these clarifications, which are the best available and most accurate
data. Should the clarification not result in an agreement, the data provided by the Party to the Secretariat
should be used.
320
Decision VIII/21: Revised formats for reporting data under Article 7 of the Protocol
1. To request the Secretariat to prepare a report which delineates all of the reporting mandates required by
the Protocol and all of the reporting requests made in the decisions of the Parties. In preparing this report,
the Secretariat should seek the views of Parties on which reporting provisions are essential for assessing
compliance and which may no longer be necessary;
2. To request the Implementation Committee to review the report referred to above, consider which
reporting provisions are essential for assessing compliance and which may no longer be necessary, and
MP DECISIONS
make recommendations to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties on potential ways to streamline the reporting
ARTICLE 7
requirements of the Montreal Protocol. In carrying out its work, the Implementation Committee should
also consider proposals for streamlining that may be submitted by the Parties.
Decision IX/28: Revised formats for reporting data under Article 7 of the Protocol
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Implementation Committee and the Secretariat on the
review and redesign of the formats for reporting data under Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To note that the issue of reporting data is an important one and that it is an area to which the Parties may
consider giving greater consideration;
3. To approve the revised forms for reporting data prepared according to the reporting mandates of the
Protocol. The data forms are set out in annex VII to the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties;
4. To recall decision IV/10 and decision IX/17, paragraph 3 (b), and request TEAP, in cooperation with the
UNEP Industry and Environment Centre, to prepare a list of mixtures known to contain controlled
substances and the percentage proportions of those substances. In particular, the list should provide
information on refrigerant mixtures and solvents. It should report this information to the Parties at the
seventeenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, and annually thereafter;
5. To request UNEP Industry and Environment Centre to draw on its existing reports and its OzonAction
Information Clearing-house (OAIC) diskette database, and, in collaboration with the other Implementing
Agencies and the Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund, prepare a handbook on data-reporting which will
provide information to the Parties to assist all Parties with data-reporting. This information should include
techniques for data collection, trade names, as identified by TEAP, customs codes (where these exist),
and advice on what sectors of industry may be using these products;
6. To stipulate that, for the purpose of the data-collection only, when reporting data on the consumption of
methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment applications, the Parties shall report the amount
consumed (i.e., import plus production minus export) and not actual “use”;
7. To note that the revised data forms in annex VII to the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties, when
completed, largely fulfil the reporting requirements under the Montreal Protocol, excluding those for
essential-use exemptions.
Decision X/29: Inconsistencies in the timing for the reporting of data under Article 7 and for
monitoring compliance with the phase-out schedule under Article 5, paragraph 8 bis
Noting that the compliance period for Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol for
the freeze in production and consumption extends from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, from 1 July 2000 to
30 June 2001, and from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 under paragraph 8 bis of Article 5,
321
Noting also that the process of collecting accurate data on anything other than a calendar year basis is
very difficult,
Noting further that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 faced similar difficulties, which
were overcome when it became clear that their reductions in production and consumption were
significantly below those required under the freeze obligations of Article 2A,
1. To urge the Implementation Committee to review and report on the status of the data reported by Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, relative to the freeze in production and consumption using the
best available data submitted;
MP DECISIONS
2. To urge the Implementation Committee to view the data from the July to June time period, or other time
ARTICLE 7
periods relevant to paragraph 8 bis of Article 5, as especially critical in cases where annual data submitted
by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 demonstrates that a country is very close to its
baseline freeze level.
Decision XXI/15: Reporting of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment use
Noting that quarantine and pre-shipment applications are currently not controlled under the Montreal Protocol,
Noting also that some Parties may not be reporting data fully on these applications,
Noting further the difficulty of assessing non-compliance with the reporting obligations for quarantine and pre-
shipment applications of methyl bromide owing to the current procedure for processing data reported under
Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol,
To urge Parties that have not reported data on quarantine and pre-shipment applications for previous years to do
so expeditiously and to urge all Parties to report such data annually as required under paragraph 3 of Article 7 of
the Montreal Protocol.
Decision XXIII/30: Decimal places to be used by the Secretariat in analysing and presenting
hydrochlorofluorocarbon data for 2011 and later years
Recognizing that for the past several years the Secretariat has been following the informal guidance set out in the
report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to round its data reported to the parties to one decimal place,
Acknowledging the low ozone-depletion potential of many Annex C, group I, controlled substances
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons),
Taking into consideration the small quantities of hydrochlorofluorocarbons used by a significant number of
parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Understanding that, as a result of the low ozone-depletion potential of hydrochlorofluorocarbons, rounding to

one decimal place could result in the continued use of a substantial amount of those substances,
Wishing to ensure that any change in the number of decimal places used to calculate baselines, consumption and
production is forward looking and does not cause changes in previously submitted data,
To direct the Secretariat to use two decimal places when presenting and analysing for compliance
hydrochlorofluorocarbon baselines established after the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties and annual
hydrochlorofluorocarbon data reported under Article 7 for 2011 and later years.
322
Decisions on trans-shipment of controlled substances
Decision III/13: Further adjustments to and amendments of the Montreal Protocol
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/13 regarding further adjustments to and amendments of the
Montreal Protocol to request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties, to consider the following proposal
which is aimed at possibly amending the Montreal Protocol and to submit a report on this proposal to the Fourth
Meeting of the Parties:
(a) Article 7, paragraph 5 (of the amended Protocol): “In cases of trans-shipment of controlled substances
through a third country (as opposed to imports and subsequent re-exports), the country of origin of the
MP DECISIONS
controlled substances shall be regarded as the exporter and the country of final destination shall be
ARTICLE 7
regarded as the importer. In such cases, the responsibility for reporting data shall lie with the country of
origin as the exporter and the country of final destination as the importer. Cases of import and re-export
should be treated as two separate transactions; the country of origin would report shipment to the country
of intermediate destination, which would subsequently report the import from the country of origin and
export to the country of final destination, while the country of final destination would report the import.”
Decision IV/14: Transshipment of controlled substances
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/14 to clarify Article 7 of the amended Protocol so that it is
understood to mean that, in cases of transshipment of controlled substances through a third country (as opposed
to imports and subsequent re-exports), the country of origin of the controlled substances shall be regarded as the
exporter and the country of final destination shall be regarded as the importer. In such cases, the responsibility
for reporting data shall lie with the country of origin as the exporter and the country of final destination as the
importer. Cases of import and re-export should be treated as two separate transactions; the country of origin
would report shipment to the country of intermediate destination, which would subsequently report the import
from the country of origin and export to the country of final destination, while the country of final destination
would report the import.
Decision IX/34: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol
The Ninth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IX/34 to remind all Parties that the Parties decided in their
decision IV/14, adopted at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties, to clarify as follows, for purposes of Article 7, the
distinction to be made between cases of transshipment of controlled substances through a third country and cases
of imports and subsequent re-exports:
(a) For cases of transshipment of controlled substances through a third country, it was clarified that the
country of origin of the controlled substances shall be regarded as the exporter and the country of
final destination shall be regarded as the importer. In such cases, the responsibility for reporting data
shall lie with the country of origin as the exporter and the country of final destination as the
importer; and
(b) For cases of import and re-export, it was clarified that import and re-export should be treated as two
separate transactions; the country of origin would report shipment to the country of intermediate
destination, which would subsequently report the import from the country of origin and export to the
country of final destination, while the country of final destination would report the import.
323
Decisions on customs codes
Decision II/12: Customs Co-operation Council
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/12 to agree with the recommendations adopted by the
Customs Co-operation Council that all member administrations take actions to reflect the adopted subheadings
in their national statistical nomenclatures as soon as possible, and to ask the Secretariat to inform the Council
that the Parties, having determined that additional subheadings for individual chemicals controlled by the
Montreal Protocol would be useful in their efforts to protect the ozone layer, request the assistance of the
Council in this regard.
MP DECISIONS
Decision IX/22: Customs codes

ARTICLE 7
1. To express appreciation to the Multilateral Fund, UNEP and the Stockholm Environmental Institute for
the useful information on the problems and possibilities of using customs codes for tracking imports of
ozone-depleting substances (ODS) contained in the book Monitoring Imports of Ozone-Depleting
Substances: A Guidebook;
2. To recommend this book as a guide to Parties seeking more information on this issue;
3. In order to facilitate cooperation between customs authorities and the authorities in charge of ODS
control and ensure compliance with licensing requirements, to request the Executive Director of UNEP:
(a) To request the World Customs Organization (WCO) to revise its decision of 20 June 1995,
recommending one joint national code on all HCFCs under subheading 2903.49, by instead
recommending separate national codes under subheading 2903.48 for the most commonly used
HCFCs (e.g., HCFC-21; HCFC-22; HCFC-31; HCFC-123; HCFC-124; HCFC-133; HCFC-141b;
HCFC-142b; HCFC-225; HCFC-225ca; HCFC-225cb);
(b) To further ask the World Customs Organization to work with major ODS suppliers to develop and
provide the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, through UNEP, with a check-list of relevant customs
codes for ODS that are commonly marketed as mixtures, for use by national customs authorities and
authorities in charge of control of ODS to ensure compliance with import licensing requirements;
4. To request all Parties with ODS production facilities to urge their producing companies to cooperate fully
with WCO in the preparation of this check-list.
Decision X/18: Customs codes
Recalling decision IX/22 on customs codes and decision IX/28, paragraph 4, on data reporting,
Noting that the existing customs codes set out in the Harmonized System do not allow Parties to easily
monitor the import and export of mixtures of substances and that this will be of particular concern for
monitoring consumption of HCFCs as a number of the HCFCs will only be consumed as part of
refrigerant mixtures being marketed to replace CFCs for some applications,
Noting that many Parties rely on the Harmonized System codes to cross-check and monitor their
consumption of ozone-depleting substances and to ensure compliance with their obligations under the
Montreal Protocol,
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat to continue discussions with the World Customs Organization on:
(a) The possibility of revising the Harmonized System to allow the inclusion of appropriate codes
for mixtures containing HCFCs, especially those used for refrigeration;
324
(b) The confirmation of the proper classification of methyl bromide that contains 2 per cent
chloropicrin as a pure substance and not as a mixture, as suggested in the illustrative list of methyl-
bromide mixtures provided earlier to the Parties by the Ozone Secretariat;
2. To convene a group of five interested experts to provide advice to the Ozone Secretariat out of session on
possible amendments to the Harmonized System;
3. To request the Ozone Secretariat to report to the nineteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group
on progress towards this end.
Decision XI/26: Recommendations and clarifications of the World Customs Organization

concerning customs codes for ozone-depleting substances and products containing ozone-
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 7
Recalling decisions IX/22 and X/18 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol dealing with customs codes for
ozone-depleting substances and products containing ozone-depleting substances,
Noting that the issue of customs codes is of great importance for the prevention of the illegal traffic of ozone-
depleting substances and for the purpose of data reporting in accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol,
1. To note, with appreciation, the actions undertaken so far by the World Customs Organization on the
further extension of the Harmonized System customs nomenclature of ozone-depleting substances and
products containing ozone-depleting substances;
2. To note the summary of the draft recommendation of the World Customs Organization concerning the
insertion in national statistical nomenclatures of Harmonized System subheadings for ozone-depleting
substances and products containing ozone-depleting substances and the clarification of the classification
under the Harmonized System Convention of methyl bromide containing small amounts of chloropicrin
provided in annex II to the report of the nineteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.1/19/7);
3. To note that the group of experts convened in accordance with decision X/18 will conduct further work
on recommendations relating to the Harmonized System codes for mixtures and products containing
ozone-depleting substances in collaboration with the World Customs Organization.
Decision XXVI/8: Measures to facilitate the monitoring of trade in hydrochlorofluorocarbons

and substituting substances
Recalling decisions IX/22, X/18 and XI/26 concerning customs codes for ozone-depleting substances and
collaboration between the Ozone Secretariat and the World Customs Organization in that regard,
Recalling also decisions of the Meeting of the Parties aimed at the prevention of illegal trade in ozone-depleting
substances, in particular decisions XIV/7, XVI/33, XVII/16, XVIII/18 and XIX/12,
Noting that, despite limitations on hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) consumption resulting from the provisions
of the Montreal Protocol, more than 1 million tonnes of HCFCs are still traded globally and the illegal trade in
HCFCs may disturb the process of phasing out those substances,
Noting also that in international trade HCFCs are replaced by alternative substances, which include
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and that the quantity of HFCs traded globally is expected to grow,
Recognizing that the existing Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Harmonized System)
code for HFCs is not HFC-specific and covers other non-ozone-depleting chemicals, which makes it difficult for
325
customs authorities to recognize the illegal nature of the relevant import or export of HCFCs if declared as
HFCs,
Mindful of the importance of a dedicated customs classification of goods for the prevention of illegal trade and
of the positive impact in that regard of the new Harmonized System classification for HCFCs approved by the
World Customs Organization, which entered into force in January 2012, and the new Harmonized System
classification for mixtures containing, inter alia, HCFCs and HFCs or perfluorocarbons, which became effective
at an earlier date,
Mindful also that World Customs Organization rules require that any application for amending a Harmonized
System classification must be made several years in advance,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 7
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat to liaise with the World Customs Organization to examine the possibility
of designating individual Harmonized System codes for the most commonly traded fluorinated substitutes
for HCFCs and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) classified under Harmonized System code 2903.39,
explaining thereby the importance of a dedicated customs classification for those substances for the sole
purpose of preventing the illegal trade in HCFCs and CFCs, and to communicate to the parties the results
of those consultations as soon as possible, but not later than at the thirty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended
Working Group, to be held in 2015;
2. To encourage parties that are contracting parties to the International Convention on the Harmonized
Commodity Description and Coding System to undertake at their earliest convenience the necessary steps,
following World Customs Organization procedures, to recommend the consideration of the customs
classifications referred to in paragraph 1 of the present decision;
3. To encourage parties that are in a position to do so to consider establishing, on a voluntary basis, domestic
customs codes for those substitutes referred to in paragraph 1.
Decisions on changes in baseline data
Decision XIV/27: Requests for changes in baseline data
1. To note that in accordance with Decision XIII/15 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, Parties that had
requested changes in reported baseline data for the base years were asked to present their requests before
the Implementation Committee, which would in turn work with the Ozone Secretariat and the Executive
Committee to confirm the justification for the changes and present them to the Meeting of the Parties for
approval;
2. To note that the following Parties have presented sufficient information to justify their requests for a
change in their baseline consumption of the relevant substances:
(a) Bulgaria to change baseline consumption data for Annex E substances in 1991 from zero to 51.78
ODP-tonnes,
(b) Sri Lanka to change its baseline consumption data for Annex A, Group I substances from 400.4 to
445.6 ODP-tonnes,
(c) Belize to change its baseline consumption data for Annex A, Group I substances from 16 to 24.4
ODP-tonnes;
(d) Paraguay to change its baseline consumption data for Annex A, Group I substances from 157.4 to
210.6 ODP-tonnes;
3. To accept these requests for changes in the respective baseline data.
326
Decision XV/19: Methodology for submission of requests for revision of baseline data
1. To recall decisions XIII/15 (paragraph 5) and XIV/27, on Parties’ requests for changes in reported
baseline data;
2. To recognize that Parties adopt different approaches to the collection and verification of data and that
there may be some special circumstances where original documentation may no longer be available, and
therefore to accept the following methodology:
MP DECISIONS
(a) Parties submitting requests to change baseline data are requested to provide the following
ARTICLE 7
information:
(i) Identification of which of the baseline year’s or years’ data are considered incorrect and
provision of the proposed new figure for that year or those years;
(ii) Explanation as to why the existing baseline data is incorrect, including information on the
methodology used to collect and verify that data, along with supporting documentation where
available;
(iii) Explanation as to why the requested changes should be considered correct, including
information on the methodology used to collect and verify the accuracy of the proposed
changes;
(iv) Documentation substantiating collection and verification procedures and their findings, which
could include:
a. Copies of invoices (including ODS production invoices), shipping and customs

documentation from either the requesting Party or its trading partners (or aggregation of
those with copies available upon request);
b. Copies of surveys and survey reports;
c. Information on country’s gross domestic product, ODS consumption and production

trends, business activity in the ODS sectors concerned;
(b) Where relevant, the Implementation Committee may also request the Secretariat to consult with the
Multilateral Fund secretariat and the implementing agencies involved in both the original data
collection exercises and any exercises that resulted in the baseline revision request to comment, and
where considered appropriate, to endorse the explanation provided. (The Parties may themselves
request the implementing agencies to provide their comments so that they can be submitted along
with their requests to the Implementation Committee);
(c) Following review of an initial request submission, if the Implementation Committee requires further
information from a Party, the Party will be invited to take advantage of clause 7 (e) of the non-
compliance procedure to invite an Implementation Committee representative, or other authorized
representative, to their country to identify and/or review the outstanding information.
Decision XVI/31: Requests for changes in baseline data
1. To note that, in accordance with decision XIII/15 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, Parties that had
requested changes in reported baseline data for the base years were asked to submit their requests to the
Implementation Committee, which would in turn work with the Ozone Secretariat and the Executive
Committee to confirm the justification for the changes and present them to the Meeting of the Parties for
approval;
327
2. To note further that decision XV/19 of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties set out the methodology for
the submission of these requests;
3. To note that the following Parties have presented sufficient information, in accordance with decisions
XIII/15 and XV/19, to justify their requests for a change in their baseline consumption of the relevant
substances:
(a) Lebanon, to change its baseline consumption data for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl
bromide) from 152.4 to 236.4 ODP tonnes;
(b) Philippines, to change its baseline consumption data for the controlled substance in Annex E
MP DECISIONS
(methyl bromide) from 8.0 to 10.3 ODP tonnes;

ARTICLE 7
(c) Thailand, to change its baseline consumption data for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl
bromide) from 164.9 to 183.0 ODP tonnes;
(d) Yemen, to change its baseline consumption data for Annex A, group I, substances (CFCs) from
349.1 to 1,796.1 ODP tonnes; for Annex A, group II, substances (halons) from 2.8 to 140.0 ODP
tonnes; and for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) from 1.1 to 54.5 ODP tonnes;
5. To accept these requests for changes in the respective baseline data;
6. To note that these changes in baseline data place the Parties in compliance with their respective control
measures for 2003.
Decision XVIII/29: Request for change in baseline data by Mexico
1. To note that the Mexico has presented sufficient information, in accordance with decision XV/19 of the
Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties, to justify its request to change its baseline data for the year 1998 for the
consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) from zero ODP-
tonnes to 187.517 ODP-tonnes;
2. To therefore accept the Party’s request to change its baseline data;
3. To note that the revised baseline data will be used to calculate the Party’s consumption baseline for
carbon tetrachloride for the year 2005 and beyond.
Decision XIX/24: Request for change in baseline data by Turkmenistan
Noting that Turkmenistan has submitted a request to revise its consumption data for the Annex E controlled
substance (methyl bromide) for the baseline year 1998 from zero to 14.3 ODP-tonnes,
Noting also that decision XV/19 of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties sets out the methodology for the
submission and review of requests for the revision of baseline data,
Noting with appreciation the extensive efforts undertaken by Turkmenistan to fulfil the information
requirements of decision XV/19, in particular its efforts to verify the accuracy of its proposed new baseline data
through the inspection of methyl bromide use sites,
1. That Turkmenistan has presented sufficient information in accordance with decision XV/19 to justify its
request to change its baseline data on the consumption of methyl bromide;
2. To change the baseline consumption data of Turkmenistan for methyl bromide for the year 1998 from
zero to 14.3 ODP-tonnes.
328
Decision XX/17: Request for change in baseline data by Saudi Arabia
Noting that Saudi Arabia has submitted a request to revise its consumption data for the Annex E controlled
substance (methyl bromide) for the baseline years 1995–1998 from 0.7 to 204.1 ODP tonnes,
Noting also that decision XV/19 of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties sets out the methodology for the
submission and review of requests to revise baseline data,
Noting with appreciation the extensive efforts undertaken by Saudi Arabia to fulfil the information requirements
MP DECISIONS
of decision XV/19, in particular its efforts to verify the accuracy of its proposed new baseline data through a
ARTICLE 7
national survey of methyl bromide use carried out with the assistance of the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme with funding from the Multilateral
Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol,
1. That Saudi Arabia has presented sufficient information, in accordance with decision XV/19, to justify its
request to change its baseline consumption data for methyl bromide;
2. To change the baseline consumption data of Saudi Arabia for methyl bromide for the years 1995–1998
from 0.7 to 204.1 ODP tonnes based on the average calculated level of consumption for the following
four years: 1995 – 161.8 ODP tonnes; 1996 – 222.5 ODP tonnes; 1997 – 210.4 ODP tonnes; 1998 – 221.7
ODP tonnes.
Decision XXIII/28: Request by Tajikistan for the revision of its baseline data
Noting that Tajikistan has submitted a request for the revision of its consumption data for the Annex C, group I,
controlled substances (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) for the baseline year 1989 from 6.0 ODP-tonnes to 18.7
ODP-tonnes,
Noting also that decision XV/19 sets out the methodology for the submission and review of requests for the
revision of baseline data,
Noting with appreciation the efforts by Tajikistan to fulfil the information requirements of decision XV/19, in
particular its efforts to verify the accuracy of its proposed new baseline data through a national survey of
hydrochlorofluorocarbon use carried out with the assistance of the United Nations Development Programme and
funding from the Global Environment Facility,
1. That Tajikistan has presented sufficient information, in accordance with decision XV/19, to justify its
request for the revision of its baseline consumption data for hydrochlorofluorocarbons;
2. To revise the baseline consumption data of Tajikistan for hydrochlorofluorocarbons for the year 1989
from 6.0 ODP-tonnes to 18.7 ODP-tonnes.
Decision XXIII/29: Requests for the revision of baseline data by Barbados, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Guyana, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Palau,
Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Togo, Tonga, Vanuatu and Zimbabwe
Noting that, in accordance with decision XIII/15, by which the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties decided that
parties requesting the revision of reported baseline data should present such requests to the Implementation
Committee, which in turn would work with the Secretariat and the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol to confirm the justification for the changes and present them to
the Meeting of the Parties for approval,
329
Noting also that decision XV/19 sets out the methodology for the submission of such requests,
1. That Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Guyana, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Lesotho, Palau, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Togo, Tonga, Vanuatu and Zimbabwe have
presented sufficient information, in accordance with decision XV/19, to justify their requests for the
revision of their consumption data for the year 2009 for hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which is part of the
baseline for parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
2. To approve the requests of the parties listed in the preceding paragraph and to revise their baseline
hydrochlorofluorocarbon consumption data for the year 2009 as indicated in the following table:
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 7
Previous data New data
Party Metric tonnes ODP-tonnes Metric tonnes ODP-tonnes
Barbados 82.68 4.5 91.43 5.1

Bosnia and Herzegovina 82.73 6.0 77.96 5.8
Brunei Darussalam 82.2 4.5 96.69 5.3
Guyana 16.822 0.9 19.271 1.1
Lao People’s Democratic Republic 22.03 1.2 39.09 2.1
Lesotho 187.0 10.3 68.271 3.8
Palau 2.04 0.1 2.56 0.1
Solomon Islands 28.28 1.6 29.09 1.6
Swaziland 99.9 9.2 103.72 9.5
Togo 372.89 20.5 350 19.3
Tonga 0.01 0.0 2.43 0.1
Vanuatu 1.46 0.1 1.89 0.1
Zimbabwe 225 12.4 303.47 17.1
Decision XXIV/16: Requests for the revision of baseline data by Algeria, Ecuador, Equatorial
Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, the Niger, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey
1. That Algeria, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, the Niger, the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia and Turkey have presented sufficient information, in accordance with decision XV/19, to
justify their requests for the revision of their consumption data for hydrochlorofluorocarbons for 2009,
2010 or both, which are part of the baseline for parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
hydrochlorofluorocarbon consumption data for the respective years as indicated in the following table:
330
Previous HCFC data New HCFC data

(metric tonnes) (ODP-tonnes) (metric tonnes) (ODP-tonnes)
Party 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
1. Algeria 497.75 497.75 30.2 30.2 1 061.6 1 122.5 60.35 63.88
2. Ecuador 379.89 261.8 20.7 14.3 469.01 386.45 25.74 21.24
3. Equatorial Guinea 253 - 13.9 - 113 - 6.22 -
4. Eritrea 1.8 1.9 0.1 0.1 19.1 20.31 1.05 1.12
5. Haiti 35.308 33.41 1.9 1.8 70 62 3.85 3.41
6. Niger 660 - 36.3 - 290 - 15.95 -
7. The former Yugoslav Republic 57.332 - 4 - 41.632 - 2.29 -
of Macedoniaa
MP DECISIONS
8. Turkey - 8 900.721 - 606.0 - 7 041.25 - 493.03
ARTICLE 7
a
The request for a revision of baseline data from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia relates only to the
exclusion of HCFCs contained in imported pre-blended polyols from its HCFC consumption.
Decision XXV/13: Requests for the revision of baseline data by the Congo, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau and Saint Lucia
1. That the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau and Saint Lucia have presented
sufficient information, in accordance with decision XV/19, to justify their requests for the revision of
their consumption data for hydrochlorofluorocarbons for 2009, 2010 or both, which are part of the
baseline for parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
hydrochlorofluorocarbon consumption data for the respective years as indicated in the following table.
Party Previous hydrochlorofluorocarbon New hydrochlorofluorocarbon data

data (ODP-tonnes) (ODP-tonnes)
2009 2010 2009 2010
Congo 7.1 - 9.68 -
Democratic Republic of the 85.7 - 55.82 -
Congo
Guinea-Bissau 0 - 2.75 -
Saint Lucia 0.4 0 1.37 0.81
Decision XXVI/14: Requests for the revision of baseline data by Libya and Mozambique
Committee under the Non-Compliance Procedure for the Montreal Protocol, which in turn would work with the
Secretariat and the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal
Protocol to confirm the justification for the changes and present them to the Meeting of the Parties for approval,
1. That Libya and Mozambique have presented sufficient information, in accordance with decision XV/19,
to justify their requests for the revision of their consumption data for hydrochlorofluorocarbons for 2010
and 2009, respectively, which are part of the baseline for parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
331
2. To approve the requests of the parties listed in the preceding paragraph and to revise their
baseline hydrochlorofluorocarbon consumption data for the respective years as indicated in the
following table:
Previous hydrochlorofluorocarbon New hydrochlorofluorocarbon data

Party data (ODP-tonnes) (ODP-tonnes)
2009 2010 2009 2010
Libya – 131.91 – 139.26
Mozambique 4.3 – 8.68 –
Decisions on compliance with data-reporting requirements: general

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 7
Decision V/6: Data and information reporting
1. To note with satisfaction that all the Parties that reported data have met or exceeded their obligations for
control measures under Article 2 of the Protocol;
2. To urge all Parties that have not yet done so to report their data to the Secretariat as soon as possible;
3. To encourage all Parties to adhere strictly to the reporting requirement under paragraph 3 of Article 7 of
the amended Protocol which provides, inter alia, that data shall be provided not later than nine months
after the end of the year to which the data relate;
4. To take note of the information provided by some Parties on the implementation of Article 4 of the
Protocol and to encourage further those Parties that have not yet done so to provide the information to the
Secretariat as soon as possible.
Decision VI/2: Implementation of Article 7 and 9 of the Protocol
1. To note with satisfaction the implementation of the provisions of the Protocol by the Parties which have
so far reported data and information under Articles 7 and 9 of the Protocol;
2. To note that the timely reporting of data and any other required information is a legal obligation for each
Party and to request all Parties to comply with the provisions of Articles 7 and 9 of the Protocol.
Decision VII/14: Implementation of the Protocol by the Parties
1. To note that the implementation of the Protocol by those Parties that have reported data is satisfactory;
2. To note with regret that only 82 Parties out of 126 that should have reported data for 1993 have reported
and that only 60 Parties have reported data for 1994;
3. To note that the timely reporting of data and any other required information is a legal obligation for each
Party and to request all Parties to comply with the provisions of Articles 7 and 9 of the Protocol.
Decision VIII/2: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Articles 7 and
9 of the Montreal Protocol
332
to date and that only 61 Parties have to date reported data for 1995;
3. To remind all Parties of the requirement to comply with the provisions of Articles 7 and 9 of the Protocol.
Decision IX/11: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Articles 7 and
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 7
to date and that only 43 Parties have to date reported data for 1996;
3. To remind all Parties to comply with the provisions of Articles 7 and 9 of the Protocol.
Decision X/2: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Articles 7 and 9
1. To note with regret that, as of 31 October 1998, only 88 of the 164 Parties that should have reported data
for 1997 had done so;
2. To remind all Parties to comply with the provisions of Articles 7 and 9 of the Protocol.
Decision XI/23: Data reporting
1. To note the improvement in the timely submission of data in accordance with Article 7 of the Protocol;
2. To note that Parties are to submit data by 30 September of the following year in accordance with their
obligations under Article 7;
3. To urge all Parties to introduce licensing systems in accordance with the provisions of decision IX/8 and
Article 4B of the Protocol to facilitate accuracy in data submission under Article 7;
4. To note that data collection on ozone-depleting substances sectors is important in assisting a Party to
meet its obligations under the Protocol and that the Parties might wish to consider the burden of
collecting sector data and other data required in the context of the Montreal Protocol at a future meeting;
5. To note that, because of the significant improvement in the timely submission of data, the Implementation
Committee had been able in 1999 to review the control status of Parties for the previous year, 1998. In
earlier years, the Implementation Committee had reviewed only the control status for two years prior.
Accordingly, decide to request that the Implementation Committee begin a full review of data for the year
immediately prior to the Meeting of the Parties beginning in 2000;
6. To note that many Parties with economies in transition have established a phase-out plan with specific
interim benchmarks in cooperation with the Global Environment Facility;
7. To urge those Parties with economies in transition mentioned in paragraph 6 above to submit to the
Secretariat the phase-out plans with specific interim benchmarks developed with the Global Environment
Facility in accordance with requests made at the Tenth Meeting of the Parties.
333
Decision XII/6: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Articles 7 and
2. To note with regret that 21 Parties out of the 175 that should have reported data for 1998 have not
reported to date;
3. To note further with regret that 59 Parties out of the 175 that should have reported data for 1999 by 30
MP DECISIONS
September 2000 have not reported to date;

ARTICLE 7
4. To remind all Parties to comply with the provisions of Article 7 and 9 of the Protocol as well as relevant
decisions of the Parties on data and information reporting.
Decision XIII/15: Data and information provided by the Parties to the 13th Meeting of the Parties
in accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol
reported to date;
3. To strongly urge Parties to report consumption and production data as soon as the figures are available,
rather than waiting until the final deadline of 30 September;
4. To urge Parties that have not already done so to report baseline data for 1986,1989 and 1991 or the best
possible estimates of such data where actual data are not available;
5. To advise Parties that request changes in reported baseline data for the base years to present their requests
before the Implementation Committee which will in turn work with the Ozone Secretariat and the
Executive Committee to confirm the justification for the changes and present them to the Meeting of the
Parties for approval.
Decision XIV/13: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of
reported to date;
3. To note further that lack of timely data reporting by Parties impedes effective monitoring and assessment
of Parties’ compliance with their obligations under the Montreal Protocol;
4. To strongly urge Parties to report consumption and production data as soon as the figures are available,
rather than waiting until the final deadline of 30 September every year;
5. To remind Parties operating under Article 5(1) that for the purposes of reporting data, under the
provisions of Article 2A paragraph 2 and Article 5 paragraph 8 bis (a) the current control period extends
from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
334
Decision XV/14: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of
2. To note with appreciation that 160 Parties out of the 183 that should have reported data for 2002 have
now done so, but that 23 have still not reported to date;
3. To note also that lack of timely data reporting by Parties impedes effective monitoring and assessment of
MP DECISIONS
Parties’ compliance with their obligations under the Montreal Protocol;
ARTICLE 7
4. To urge Parties strongly to report consumption and production data as soon as the figures are available,
rather than waiting until the final deadline of 30 September every year.
Decision XV/15: Earlier reporting of consumption and production data
Recalling that, in decision XIV/13, the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties strongly urged Parties to report
consumption and production data as soon as data are available,
Noting that, in order to review the compliance of a Party to the Protocol and to make useful and timely
recommendations to the Meeting of the Parties, the Implementation Committee must have access to accurate and
up-to-date information,
Noting in that regard the importance of timely data reporting pursuant to Article 7,
Recognizing that, in order to enable the Implementation Committee to make recommendations in good time
before the Meeting of the Parties, it is desirable for data to be forwarded to the Secretariat by 30 June each year,
rather than 30 September each year as currently required by paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Protocol,
1. To encourage the Parties to forward data on consumption and production to the Secretariat as soon as the
figures are available, and preferably by 30 June each year, rather than 30 September each year as
currently required by paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Protocol;
2. To request the Secretariat to report to the Parties on the response to the above encouragement as well as
its beneficial effect on the work of the Implementation Committee, with a view to helping the Parties to
decide on the usefulness of an amendment to the Protocol to give legal effect to paragraph 1 of the
present decision at the earliest opportunity.
Decision XVI/17: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of
now done so, but that the following Parties have still not reported to date: Botswana, Lesotho, Liberia,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Russian Federation, Solomon Islands, Turkmenistan and
Tuvalu;
3. To note further that the Federated States of Micronesia has also still not reported data for 2001 and 2002;
4. To note that this places those Parties in non-compliance with their data-reporting obligations under the
Montreal Protocol and to urge them, where appropriate, to work closely with the implementing agencies
335
to report the required data to the Secretariat as a matter of urgency, and to request the Implementation
Committee to review the situation of those Parties at its next meeting;
6. To recall decision XV/15, which encouraged the Parties to forward data on consumption and production
to the Secretariat as soon as the figures were available, and preferably by 30 June each year, in order to
enable the Implementation Committee to make recommendations in good time before the Meeting of the
Parties;
MP DECISIONS
7. To note further with appreciation that 92 Parties out of the 184 that could have reported data by 30 June
ARTICLE 7
2004 succeeded in meeting that deadline;
8. To note also that reporting by 30 June each year greatly facilitates the work of the Executive Committee
of the Multilateral Fund in assisting Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to comply with the
control measures of the Montreal Protocol;
9. To encourage Parties to continue to report consumption and production data as soon as the figures are
available, and preferably by 30 June each year, as agreed in decision XV/15.
Decision XVII/20: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of
done so, and that 114 of those Parties reported their data by 30 June 2005 in conformance with decision
XV/15;
2. To note, however, that the following Parties have still not reported 2004 data: Cook Islands,
Mozambique, Nauru;
3. To note that this places the Parties listed in paragraph 2 in non-compliance with their data-reporting
obligations under the Montreal Protocol until such time as the Secretariat receives their outstanding data;
4. To urge the Parties listed in paragraph 2, where appropriate, to work closely with the implementing
agencies to report the required data to the Secretariat as a matter of urgency, and to request the
Implementation Committee to review the situation of those Parties at its next meeting;
6. To note further that reporting by 30 June each year greatly facilitates the work of the Executive
Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in assisting Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol to comply with the Protocol’s control measures;
7. To encourage Parties to continue to report consumption and production data as soon as figures are
Decision XVIII/34: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of
1. To note with appreciation that 181 Parties out of the 189 that should have reported data for 2005 in
accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol have done so and that 104 of those Parties reported
their data by 30 June 2006 in accordance with decision XV/15;
336
2. To note, however, that the following Parties have still not reported their 2005 data: Cote d’Ivoire, Malta,
Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of);
3. To note that their failure to report their 2005 data in accordance with Article 7 places the Parties listed in
paragraph 2 in non-compliance with their data-reporting obligations under the Protocol until such time as
the Secretariat receives their outstanding data;
Parties’ compliance with their obligations under the Protocol;
5. To note further that reporting by 30 June each year greatly facilitates the work of the Executive
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 7
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol to comply with the Protocol’s control measures;
6. To urge the Parties listed in the present decision, as appropriate, to work closely with the implementing
agencies of the Multilateral Fund to report the required data to the Secretariat as a matter of urgency;
to review the situation of the Parties listed in paragraph 2 at its next meeting;
Decision XIX/25: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of
Noting with appreciation that 130 Parties out of the 190 that should have reported data for 2006 have done so
and that 72 of those Parties reported their data by 30 June 2007 in accordance with decision XV/15,
Noting with concern, however, that the number of Parties that have reported 2006 data is lower than the number
of Parties that reported 2005 data by September of 2006,
Noting that a lack of timely data reporting by Parties impedes effective monitoring and assessment of Parties’
compliance with their obligations under the Montreal Protocol,
Noting also that reporting by 30 June each year greatly facilitates the work of the Executive Committee of the
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in assisting Parties operating under paragraph
1 of Article 5 of the Protocol to comply with the Protocol’s control measures,
1. To urge the Parties that have yet to report their data for 2006 to report the required data to the Secretariat
in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol, working closely with the
implementing agencies where appropriate;
2. To request the Implementation Committee to review at its next meeting the situation of those Parties that
have not submitted their 2006 data by that time;
337
Decision XX/12: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of
1. To note with appreciation that 189 Parties out of the 191 which should have reported data for 2007 have
now done so and that 75 of those Parties reported their data by 30 June 2008 in conformity with decision
XV/15;
2. To note, however, that the following Parties have to date not reported data for 2007: Solomon Islands and
Tonga;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 7
3. To note that their non-reporting of data places the Parties named above in non-compliance with their
data-reporting obligations under the Montreal Protocol until such time as the Secretariat receives their
outstanding data;
4. To urge those Parties, where appropriate, to work closely with the implementing agencies to report the
required data to the Secretariat as a matter of urgency and to request the Implementation Committee to
review the situation of those Parties at its next meeting;
5. To note that a lack of timely data reporting by Parties impedes effective monitoring and assessment of
Parties’ compliance with their obligations under the Montreal Protocol by the Implementation Committee
and the Meeting of the Parties;
6. To note further that reporting data by 30 June each year greatly facilitates the work of the Executive
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to comply with the control measures of the Montreal Protocol;
Decision XXI/14: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of
Noting with appreciation that 188 Parties out of the 193 that should have reported data for 2008 have done so
and that 64 of those Parties reported their data by 30 June 2009 in accordance with decision XV/15,
Noting with concern, however, that the following Parties have still not reported 2008 data: Angola, Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea, Malta, Nauru, United Arab Emirates,
Noting that their failure to report their 2008 data in accordance with Article 7 places those Parties in non-
compliance with their data-reporting obligations under the Montreal Protocol until such time as the Secretariat
receives their outstanding data,
Noting also that a lack of timely data reporting by Parties impedes the effective monitoring and assessment of
Parties’ compliance with their obligations under the Montreal Protocol,
Noting further that reporting by 30 June each year greatly facilitates the work of the Executive Committee of the
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in assisting Parties operating under paragraph
1. To urge the Parties listed in the present decision, where appropriate, to work closely with the
implementing agencies to report the required data to the Secretariat as a matter of urgency;
2. To request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of those Parties at its next meeting;
338
Decision XXII/14: Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of
Noting with appreciation that 196 parties of the 196 that should have reported data for 2009 have done so and
that 68 of those parties reported their data by 30 June 2010 in accordance with decision XV/15,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 7
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in assisting parties operating under paragraph
To encourage parties to continue to report consumption and production data as soon as figures are available, and
preferably by 30 June each year, as agreed in decision XV/15.
Decision XXIII/22: Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of
Noting with concern, however, that the following parties have not reported 2010 data: Libya, Liechtenstein, Peru
and Yemen,
Noting that their failure to report their 2010 data in accordance with Article 7 places those parties in non-
Noting also that a lack of timely data reporting by parties impedes effective monitoring and assessment of
parties’ compliance with their obligations under the Montreal Protocol,
1. To urge the parties listed in the present decision to work closely with the implementing agencies, where
appropriate, and report the required data to the Secretariat as a matter of urgency;
2. To request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of those parties at its forty-eighth
meeting;
3. To encourage parties to continue to report consumption and production data as soon as figures are
Decision XXIV/12: Differences between data reported on imports and data reported on exports
Noting differences in data on imports and exports of controlled substances submitted by the parties under Article 7 of
the Montreal Protocol, and recognizing that while such shipments may have plausible explanations such as shipments
over the end of a calendar year or the submission of incomplete data, they may also result from illegal trade activities
or from not complying with domestic legislation without criminal intent,
339
Noting also that in the Article 7 data reporting format, as last revised by decision XVII/16, parties exporting controlled
substances are requested to submit to the Ozone Secretariat information on countries of destination, while there is no
request for parties importing controlled substances with regard to the country of origin,
Noting further that the absence of a request for importing countries to submit information on source countries makes
the process of clarification of differences complex and burdensome for both importing and exporting countries,
Mindful that the further improvement of data reporting systems will facilitate the prevention of the illegal trade in
controlled substances,
Recalling decisions IV/14 and IX/34, which provided some clarification on how to report transhipments and imports
MP DECISIONS
for re-export and thereby provided an indication on what country is to be considered as country of origin,
ARTICLE 7
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat to revise, before 1 January 2013, the reporting format resulting from
decision XVII/16 to include in the data forms an annex indicating the exporting party for the quantities
reported as import, and noting that the annex is excluded from the reporting requirements under Article 7
and that the provision of the information in the annex would be done on a voluntary basis;
2. To request the Ozone Secretariat to compile every January aggregated information on controlled
substances by annex and group received from the importing/re-importing party and to provide this
uniquely and solely to the exporting party concerned when requested, in a manner that will maintain
information deemed to be confidential in accordance with decision I/11;
3. To invite parties to enhance cooperation with the view to clarifying any differences in import and export
data as provided by the Ozone Secretariat in accordance with paragraph 2 above;
4. To invite parties to consider participation in the informal Prior Informed Consent (iPIC) scheme as a
means to improve information about their potential imports of controlled substances.
Decision XXIV/13: Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of
Noting with appreciation that 194 parties of the 196 that should have reported data for 2011 have done so, and that 99
of those parties reported their data by 30 June 2012 in accordance with decision XV/15,
Noting further that 173 of those parties reported their data by 30 September 2012 as required under Article 7 of the
Montreal Protocol,
Noting with concern, however, that the following parties have not reported 2011 data: Mali, and Sao Tome and
Principe,
Noting that their failure to report their 2011 data in accordance with Article 7 places those parties in non-compliance
with their data-reporting obligations under the Montreal Protocol until such time as the Secretariat receives their
outstanding data,
Noting also that a lack of timely data reporting by parties impedes effective monitoring and assessment of parties’
compliance with their obligations under the Montreal Protocol,
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in assisting parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Protocol to comply with the Protocol’s control measures,
1. To urge the parties listed in the present decision, where appropriate, to work closely with the
2. To request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of those parties at its fiftieth meeting;
340
Decision XXIV/14: Reporting of zero in Article 7 data reporting forms
Recalling the need for consistent reporting of production, imports, exports and destruction of ozone-depleting
substances in accordance with article 7 of the Montreal Protocol,
Noting that the forms for reporting in accordance with article 7 submitted by parties sometimes contain blank cells, in
MP DECISIONS
which no numbers indicating quantities of ozone-depleting substances are entered,
ARTICLE 7
Noting also that such blank cells could be intended by a party in a given case to indicate zero controlled substances or,
alternatively, could represent non-reporting by that party in respect of those substances,
1. To request parties, when reporting production, imports, exports or destruction, to enter a number in each
cell in the data reporting forms that they submit, including zero, where appropriate, rather than leaving the
cell blank;
2. To ask the Secretariat to request clarification from any party that submits a reporting form containing a
blank cell.
Decision XXV/14: Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of
Noting that 164 of those parties reported their data by 30 September 2013 as required under Article 7 of the
Montreal Protocol,
Noting with concern, however, that the following parties have not reported their data for 2012: Eritrea, South
Sudan and Yemen,
Noting that failure to report their data for 2012 in accordance with Article 7 places those parties in non-
1. To urge the parties listed in the present decision, where appropriate, to work closely with the
2. To request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of those parties at its fifty-second
meeting;
341
Decision XXVI/12: Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of
Noting that 158 of those parties reported their data by 30 September 2014 as required under paragraph 3 of
Noting with concern, however, that the Central African Republic has not reported 2013 data,
MP DECISIONS
Noting that its failure to report its 2013 data in accordance with Article 7 places the party in non-compliance
ARTICLE 7
with its data-reporting obligations under the Montreal Protocol until such time as the Secretariat receives the
outstanding data,
1. To urge the Central African Republic, where appropriate, to work closely with the implementing agencies
to report the required data to the Secretariat as a matter of urgency;
2. To request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of the Central African Republic at its
fifty-fourth meeting;
Decision XXVII/9: Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of
Noting with appreciation that 193 of the 197 parties that should have reported data for 2014 have done so and
Noting that 140 of those parties reported their data by 30 September 2015 as required under paragraph 3 of
Noting with concern, however, that the following parties have not reported 2014 data: Democratic Republic of
Congo, Dominica, Somalia and Yemen,
Noting that their failure to report their 2014 data in accordance with Article 7 places those parties in non-
Noting also that a lack of timely data reporting by parties impedes the effective monitoring and assessment of
1. To urge the Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominica, Somalia and Yemen, where appropriate, to work
closely with the implementing agencies to report the required data to the Secretariat as a matter of
urgency;
2. To request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of those parties listed in paragraph 1
above at its fifty-sixth meeting;
342
Decisions on compliance with data-reporting requirements: base-year and

baseline data
Decision XIV/14: Non-compliance with data reporting requirements under Article 7 of the
Montreal Protocol by Parties temporarily classified as operating under Article 5 of the Protocol
1. To note that the following Parties, temporarily classified as operating under Article 5, have not reported
any consumption or production data to the Secretariat: Cambodia, Cape Verde, Djibouti, Liberia,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
MP DECISIONS
Suriname and Vanuatu;
ARTICLE 7
2. To note that this situation places these Parties in non-compliance with their data reporting obligations
under the Montreal Protocol;
3. To acknowledge that many of these Parties have only recently ratified the Montreal Protocol but also to
note that twelve of them have received assistance with data collection from the Multilateral Fund through
the Implementing Agencies;
4. To urge these Parties to work together with the United Nations Environment Programme under the
Compliance Assistance Programme and with other Implementing Agencies of the Multilateral Fund to
report data as quickly as possible to the Secretariat, and to request the Implementation Committee to
review the situation of these Parties with respect to data reporting at its next meeting.
Decision XIV/15: Non-compliance with data reporting requirement under Article 7 paragraphs 1
1. To note that several Parties operating under Article 5 have not reported data for one or more of the base
years (1986, 1989 or 1991) for one or more groups of controlled substances, as required by Article 7
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To note that Article 7 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Protocol provides for Parties to submit best possible
estimates of the data referred to in those provisions where actual data is not available;
3. To request that the Secretariat should communicate with the Parties referred to in paragraph 1 above and
offer assistance in reporting such estimates in accordance with Article 7 paragraphs (1) and (2).
Decision XIV/16: Non-compliance with data reporting requirement for the purpose of
establishing baselines under Article 5 paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d)
1. To note that the following Parties have not reported data for one or more of the years which are required
for the establishment of baselines for Annex A and E to the Protocol, as provided for by Article 5,
paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d):
(a) For Annex A: Angola, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Djibouti, Haiti, Liberia, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Suriname and
Vanuatu;
(b) For Annex E: Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Micronesia (Federated States
of), Haiti, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Liberia, Maldives, Nigeria, Palau, Saint Kitts
and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Vanuatu;
343
2. To note that this places these Parties in non-compliance with their data reporting obligations under the
Montreal Protocol;
3. To stress that compliance by these Parties with the Montreal Protocol cannot be determined without
knowledge of this data;
4. To note that 18 out of 20 of these Parties are receiving assistance with data collection from the
Multilateral Fund through the Implementing Agencies;
5. To urge these Parties to work closely with the Agencies concerned to report the required data to the
Secretariat as a matter of urgency, and to request the Implementation Committee to review the situation
MP DECISIONS
of these Parties with respect to data reporting at its next meeting.

ARTICLE 7
Decision XV/16: Non-compliance with data reporting requirements under Article 7,

1. To recall decision XIV/15 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, on non-compliance with data
reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting data for base years;
2. To note with appreciation that several Parties have submitted data for their base years following the
adoption of decision XIV/15;
3. To note, however, that the following Parties operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, have still not reported
data for one or more of the base years (1986, 1989 or 1991) for one or more groups of controlled
substances, as required by Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Montreal Protocol: Cape Verde, China,
Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mali, Marshall Islands, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Nauru, Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia and Suriname;
4. To note further that Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Protocol provide for Parties to submit best
possible estimates of the data referred to in those provisions where actual data are not available;
5. To request the relevant implementing agencies of the Multilateral Fund to make available to the
Secretariat any data they have obtained which may be relevant;
6. To request the Secretariat to communicate with the Parties referred to in paragraph 3 above and to offer
assistance in reporting such estimates in accordance with Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2.
Decision XV/17: Non-compliance with data reporting requirements under Article 7 of the
Montreal Protocol by Parties temporarily classified as operating under Article 5 of the Protocol
1. To note with appreciation the fact that, as requested under decision XIV/14 of the Fourteenth Meeting of
the Parties, the following Parties have reported data, thus bringing themselves into compliance with the
provisions of Article 7 and enabling their temporary classification as Article 5 Parties to be removed:
Cambodia, Nauru, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Suriname;
2. To note nevertheless that the following Parties, temporarily classified as operating under Article 5, have
still not reported any consumption or production data to the Secretariat: Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, São
Tomé and Príncipe and Somalia;
3. To note that that situation places those Parties in non-compliance with their data reporting obligations
344
4. To acknowledge that many of those Parties have only recently ratified the Montreal Protocol but also to
note that all of them have received assistance with data collection from the Multilateral Fund through the
implementing agencies;
5. To urge those Parties to work together with the United Nations Environment Programme under the
Compliance Assistance Programme and with other implementing agencies of the Multilateral Fund to
review the situation of those Parties with respect to data reporting at its next meeting.
Decision XV/18: Non-compliance with data reporting requirement for the purpose of
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 7
1. To note with appreciation the fact that, as requested under decision XIV/16 of the Fourteenth Meeting of
the Parties, the following Parties have reported baseline data, thus bringing themselves into compliance
with the provisions of Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d): Angola, Cambodia, Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Maldives, Micronesia (Federated States of),
Nauru, Nigeria, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sierra Leone, Suriname and Vanuatu;
2. To note nevertheless that the following Parties have still not reported data for one or more of the years
which are required for the establishment of baselines for Annexes A, B and E to the Protocol, as provided
for by Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d):
(a) For Annex A: Cape Verde, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Somalia;
(b) For Annex B: Cape Verde, Djibouti, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, São Tomé and Príncipe, and
Somalia;
(c) For Annex E: Cape Verde, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, India, Liberia, Mali, São Tomé and Príncipe,
and Somalia;
3. To note that that places those Parties in non-compliance with their data reporting obligations under the
Montreal Protocol;
4. To stress that compliance by those Parties with the Montreal Protocol cannot be determined without
knowledge of those data;
5. To note that all those Parties are receiving assistance with data collection from the Multilateral Fund
through the implementing agencies;
6. To note also that some of those Parties have only recently ratified various amendments to the Montreal
Protocol and consequently may be in the process of collecting the required baseline data;
7. To urge those Parties to work closely with the implementing agencies concerned to report the required
data to the Secretariat as a matter of urgency, and to request the Implementation Committee to review the
situation of those Parties with respect to data reporting at its next meeting.
Decision XVI/18: Non-compliance with data-reporting requirements under Articles 5 and 7 of

the Montreal Protocol by Parties recently ratifying the Montreal Protocol l
1. To note that the following Parties, temporarily classified as operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
have not reported any consumption or production data to the Secretariat: Afghanistan and Cook Islands;
2. To note that that situation places those Parties in non-compliance with their data-reporting obligations
345
3. To acknowledge that all those Parties have only recently ratified the Montreal Protocol and also to note
that Cook Islands has not yet received assistance with data collection from the Multilateral Fund through
the implementing agencies;
4. To urge those Parties to work together with the United Nations Environment Programme under the
compliance assistance programme and with other implementing agencies of the Multilateral Fund to
review the situation of those Parties with respect to data reporting at its next meeting.
Decision XVII/21: Non-compliance with data-reporting requirements under Articles 5 and 7 of

the Montreal Protocol by Parties recently ratifying the Montreal Protocol
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 7
1. To note that Eritrea, temporarily classified as operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal
Protocol, has not reported any consumption or production data to the Secretariat;
2. To note that that situation places that Party in non-compliance with its data-reporting obligations under
the Montreal Protocol until such time as the Secretariat receives the outstanding data;
3. To acknowledge that Eritrea has only recently ratified the Montreal Protocol and has received approval
for data collection assistance from the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
through the latter’s implementing agencies;
4. To note with appreciation Eritrea’s commitment to submit its outstanding data no later than the first
quarter of 2006;
5. To urge Eritrea to work together with the United Nations Environment Programme under the Compliance
Assistance Programme and with other implementing agencies of the Multilateral Fund to report data as
quickly as possible to the Secretariat and to request the Implementation Committee to review the situation
of that Party with respect to data-reporting at its next meeting.
Decision XVII/22: Non-compliance with data-reporting requirements for the purpose of

1. To note that Serbia and Montenegro has not reported data for one or more of the years which are required
for the establishment of baselines for Annexes B and E to the Protocol, as provided for by Article 5,
paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d);
2. To note that that places Serbia and Montenegro in non-compliance with its data-reporting obligations
under the Montreal Protocol until such time as the Secretariat receives the outstanding data;
3. To stress that compliance by Serbia and Montenegro with the Montreal Protocol cannot be determined
without knowledge of those data;
4. To acknowledge that Serbia and Montenegro has only recently ratified the amendments to the Protocol to
which the data-reporting obligation relates, but also to note that its has received assistance with data
collection from the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol through the Fund’s
implementing agencies;
5. To urge Serbia and Montenegro to work together with the United Nations Environment Programme under
the Compliance Assistance Programme and with other implementing agencies of the Multilateral Fund to
report data as a matter of urgency to the Secretariat and to request the Implementation Committee to
review the situation of Serbia and Montenegro with respect to data reporting at its next meeting.
346
Decision XXIII/25: Non-reporting of 2009 data on hydrochlorofluorocarbons by Yemen in

accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol
Noting with appreciation that Yemen in October 2010 reported all its data for 2009 except for data concerning
the controlled substances in Annex C, group I (hydrochlorofluorocarbons),
Noting that the non-reporting of hydrochlorofluorocarbon data places Yemen in non-compliance with its
reporting obligations under paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol,
MP DECISIONS
Noting also the party’s explanation at the time of reporting in October 2010 that it had delayed reporting its
ARTICLE 7
hydrochlorofluorocarbon data because survey activities for the preparation of its hydrochlorofluorocarbon phase-
out management plan were continuing and that it intended to report the data upon completion of those activities,
Noting with concern the lack of response from Yemen to subsequent communications from the Secretariat,
Noting that according to the United Nations Environment Programme, in its role as an implementing agency
operating in the party, Yemen had completed the collection of data but had yet to verify it,
Recognizing the security situation and the political and social difficulties faced by Yemen in recent months,
1. To urge Yemen to work closely with the implementing agencies to report the required data to the
Secretariat as a matter of urgency;
2. To request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of Yemen at its forty-eighth meeting.
347
[For decisions on non-compliance with data-reporting requirements, see Article 7.]
Decisions on non-compliance procedure
Decision I/8: Non-compliance
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/8:
(a) to establish an open-ended ad hoc Working Group of Legal Experts to develop and submit to the
MP DECISIONS
Secretariat by 1 November 1989 appropriate proposals for consideration and approval by the Parties at
ARTICLE 8
their Second Meeting on procedures and institutional mechanisms for determining non-compliance with
the provisions of the Montreal Protocol and for the treatment of Parties that fail to comply with its terms;
(b) to invite Parties and signatories to submit to the Secretariat by no later than 22 May 1989 any comments
or proposals they wish to see reflected in the working documents of the ad hoc working group;
(c) to urge the Parties to provide within the next three months on a voluntary basis, the necessary funds for
the ad hoc working group’s meeting.
Decision II/5: Non-compliance
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/5:
To adopt, on an interim basis, the procedures and institutional mechanisms for determining non-compliance with
the provisions of the Protocol and for treatment of Parties found to be in non-compliance, as set out in Annex III
to the report on the work of the Second Meeting of the Parties;
To extend the mandate of the open-ended Ad hoc Working Group of Legal Experts to elaborate further
procedures on non-compliance and terms of reference for the Implementation Committee and to present the
results for review by the preparatory meeting to the Fourth Meeting of the Parties with a view to their
consideration at the Fourth Meeting.
Decision III/2: Non-compliance procedure
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/2 to
(a) request the Ad hoc Working Group of Legal Experts on the Non-compliance Procedure with the Montreal
Protocol, when elaborating further the procedures on non-compliance, to:
(i) identify possible situations of non-compliance with the Protocol;
(ii) develop an indicative list of advisory and conciliatory measures to encourage full compliance;
(iii) reflect the role of the Implementation Committee as an advisory and conciliatory body bearing in
mind that the recommendation of the Implementation Committee on Non-compliance Procedure
must always be referred to the meeting of the Parties for final decision;
(iv) reflect the possible need for legal interpretation of the provisions of the Protocol;
(v) draw up an indicative list of measures that might be taken by a meeting of the Parties in respect of
Parties that are not in compliance with the Protocol, bearing in mind the need to provide all
assistance possible to countries, particularly developing countries, to enable them to comply with the
Protocol;
(vi) endorse the conclusion of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal Experts that the judicial and arbitral
settlement of disputes provided for in Article 11 of the Vienna Convention and the Non-compliance
348
Procedure pursuant to Article 8 of the Montreal Protocol were two distinct and separate procedures
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.3/2/3);
(b) adopt the following timetable for finalization of the draft non-compliance procedures for consideration by
the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol:
October 1991: Meeting of the Ad hoc Working Group of Legal Experts to complete the draft
procedures for endorsement by the Parties;
November 1991: Submission of draft non-compliance procedures to the Ozone Secretariat;
MP DECISIONS
December 1991: Circulation of draft non-compliance procedures to the Parties.
ARTICLE 8
Decision III/17: Amendment of the Vienna Convention
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/17 with respect to the amendment procedure of the Vienna
Convention, to request the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal Experts on Non-compliance with the Montreal
Protocol to consider procedures for expediting the amendment procedure under Article 9 of the Vienna
Convention.
Decision IV/5: Non-compliance procedure
1. to note with appreciation the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal Experts on Non-Compliance
with the Montreal Protocol;
2. to adopt the non-compliance procedure, as set out in Annex IV to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the
Parties;
3. to adopt the indicative list of measures that might be taken in respect of non-compliance, as set out in
Annex V to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.5 in this Handbook];
4. to accept the recommendation that there is no need to expedite the amendment procedure under Article 9
of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer;
5. to adopt the view that the responsibility for legal interpretation of the Protocol rests ultimately with the
Parties themselves.
Decision IX/35: Review of the non-compliance procedure
Recalling the non-compliance procedure adopted by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties in its decision IV/5,
Noting that these procedures have not been reviewed since their adoption in 1992,
Aware that the effective operation of the Protocol requires that these procedures should be reviewed on a regular
basis,
Also aware of the fundamental importance of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol
and of assisting Parties to that end,
1. To establish an Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Non-Compliance composed
of fourteen members: seven representatives from Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and
seven representatives from Parties not operating under Article 5, to review the non-compliance procedure
of the Montreal Protocol and to develop appropriate conclusions and recommendations, for consideration
349
by the Parties, on the need and modalities for the further elaboration and the strengthening of this
procedure;
2. To select the following seven Parties: Australia, Canada, European Community, Russian Federation,
Slovakia, Switzerland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from those Parties not
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, and to select the following seven Parties: Argentina, Botswana,
China, Georgia, Morocco, Sri Lanka and St. Lucia, from those Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5, as members of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Non-
Compliance;
3. To note that the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Non-Compliance shall select
MP DECISIONS
two Co-Chairs, one from those Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and one from Parties not
ARTICLE 8
so operating;
4. To adopt the following timetable for the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical
Experts on Non-Compliance:
(a) 1 November 1997: each of the selected Parties is invited to indicate to the Secretariat the name of its
representative to the Ad Hoc Working Group;
(b) 1 January 1998: all Parties are also invited to submit to the Secretariat any comments or proposals
they wish to see considered in the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group;
(c) The Ad Hoc Working Group will meet during the three days immediately prior to the seventeenth
meeting of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties. It should provide a short report at the
seventeenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties on the status of its work;
(d) The Ad Hoc Working Group will meet during the three days immediately prior to the Tenth Meeting
of the Parties. It should provide a status report on the outcome of its work, including any
conclusions and recommendations;
(e) The Group may also consider carrying out additional work through correspondence or any other
means it considers appropriate;
5. To request the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Non-Compliance, when
reviewing the non-compliance procedure to:
(a) Consider any proposals presented by Parties for strengthening the non-compliance procedure,
including, inter alia, how repeated instances of major significance of non-compliance with the
Protocol could trigger the adoption of measures under the indicative list of measures with a view to
ensuring prompt compliance with the Protocol;
(b) Consider any proposals presented by Parties for improving the effectiveness of the functioning of
the Implementation Committee, including with respect to data-reporting and the conduct of its work;
6. To consider and adopt any appropriate decision at the Tenth Meeting of the Parties upon the review of the
work of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Non-Compliance, including its
conclusions and/or recommendations;
7. To note that the review of the “Indicative list of measures that might be taken by a meeting of the Parties
in respect of non-compliance with the Protocol” is not included in the mandate of the Ad Hoc Working
Group.
Decision X/10: Review of the non-compliance procedure
Recalling decision IV/5 on a non-compliance procedure of the Montreal Protocol adopted by the Fourth
Meeting of the Parties,
350
Recalling also decision IX/35 on review of the non-compliance procedure adopted by the Ninth Meeting
of the Parties,
Noting the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Non-Compliance
established by decision IX/35 (UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.4/1/3) and, in particular, its conclusion that in general
the non-compliance procedure has functioned satisfactorily but that further clarification was desirable and
that some additional practices should be developed to streamline the procedure,
1. To express appreciation to the Ad Hoc Working Group for its report reviewing the non-compliance
procedure;
MP DECISIONS
2. To agree on the following changes in the text with a view to clarifying particular paragraphs of the non-
ARTICLE 8
compliance procedure:
(a) In paragraph 2, the following should be substituted for the last sentence:
“If the Secretariat has not received a reply from the Party three months after sending it the original
submission, the Secretariat shall send a reminder to the Party that it has yet to provide its reply. The
Secretariat shall, as soon as the reply and information from the Party are available, but not later than
six months after receiving the submission, transmit the submission, the reply and the information, if
any, provided by the Parties to the Implementation Committee referred to in paragraph 5, which
shall consider the matter as soon as practicable.”
(b) In paragraph 3, the following should be substituted for the word “accordingly” at the end of the
paragraph:
“, which shall consider the matter as soon as practicable”
(c) In paragraph 5:
(i) The following should be inserted after the second sentence:
“Each Party so elected to the Committee shall be requested to notify the Secretariat, within two
months of its election, of who is to represent it and shall endeavour to ensure that such
representation remains throughout the entire term of office.”
(ii) The following should be inserted after the third sentence:
“A Party that has completed a second consecutive two-year term as a Committee member shall
be eligible for election again only after an absence of one year from the Committee.”
(d) In paragraph 7, the following subparagraph should be inserted after subparagraph (c):
“(d) To identify the facts and possible causes relating to individual cases of non-compliance
referred to the Committee, as best it can, and make appropriate recommendations to the
Meeting of the Parties;”
and the subsequent subparagraphs should be renumbered accordingly;
3. To agree, consistent with the Implementation Committee’s practice of reviewing all instances of non-
compliance, that in situations where there has been a persistent pattern of non-compliance by a Party, the
Implementation Committee should report and make appropriate recommendations to the Meeting of the
Parties with the view to ensuring the integrity of the Montreal Protocol, taking into account the
circumstances surrounding the Party’s persistent pattern of non-compliance. In this connection,
consideration should be given to progress made by a Party towards achieving compliance and measures
taken to help the non-compliant Party return to compliance;
4. To draw the attention of Parties to the amended non-compliance procedure as set out in annex II to the
report of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties [see Section 3.5 in this Handbook];
351
5. To consider, unless the Parties decide otherwise, the operation of the non-compliance procedure again no
later than the end of 2003.
Decision XVIII/17: Treatment of stockpiled ozone-depleting substances relative to compliance
1. To note that the Secretariat has reported that Parties which had exceeded the allowed level of production
or consumption of a particular ozone-depleting substances in a given year have in some cases explained
that their excess production or consumption represented one of the four following scenarios:
MP DECISIONS
(a) Ozone-depleting substance production in that year which had been stockpiled for domestic
ARTICLE 8
destruction or export for destruction in a future year;
(b) Ozone-depleting substance production in that year which had been stockpiled for domestic
feedstock use or export for that use in a future year;
(c) Ozone-depleting substance production in that year which had been stockpiled for export to meet
basic domestic needs of developing countries in a future year;
(d) Ozone-depleting substances imported in that year which had been stockpiled for domestic feedstock
use in a future year;
2. To recall that the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal
Protocol had concluded that scenario (d) was, in any event, in conformity with the provisions of the
Montreal Protocol and decisions of the Meetings of the Parties;
3. To request the Secretariat to maintain a consolidated record of the cases in which the Parties have
explained that their situations are the consequence of scenarios (a), (b) or (c), and incorporate that record
in the documentation of the Implementation Committee, for information purposes only, as well as in the
Secretariat’s report on data submitted by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of the Protocol;
4. To recognize that new scenarios not covered by paragraph 1 will be addressed by the Implementation
Committee in accordance with the non-compliance procedure of the Protocol and the established practice
thereunder;
5, To agree to revisit this issue at the Twenty-first Meeting of the Parties, in the light of the information
gathered in accordance with paragraph 3 of the present decision, with a view to considering the need for
further action.
Decision XXII/20: Treatment of stockpiled ozone-depleting substances
Recalling that in decision XVIII/17 the Secretariat was requested to maintain a consolidated record of the cases
in which parties had explained that their excess production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances in a
given year were a consequence of the production or import of ozone-depleting substances in that year that were
stockpiled for some specified purposes in a future year,
Recalling also that the Secretariat was also requested to incorporate that record in the documentation prepared
for each meeting of the Implementation Committee, for information purposes only, as well as in the Secretariat’s
report on data submitted by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of the Protocol,
Noting that the Secretariat has reported 29 cases since 1999 involving 12 parties that have exceeded the allowed
level of production or consumption of a particular ozone-depleting substance in a given year and explained that
their excess production or consumption resulted from one of the scenarios mentioned above,
352
1. To remind all parties to report all production of ozone-depleting substances, whether intended or
unintended, to enable the calculation of their production and consumption according to Article 3 of the
Protocol;
2. To request parties, when reporting data under Article 7 of the Protocol, to identify any excess production
and consumption that is a consequence of ozone-depleting substance production in the reporting year:
(a). For domestic destruction or export for destruction in a future year;
(b) For domestic feedstock use or export for that use in a future year;
MP DECISIONS
(c) For export to meet basic domestic needs of developing countries in a future year;
ARTICLE 8
3. That in any case mentioned in paragraph 2 no follow-up action from the Implementation Committee is
deemed necessary if the party reports that it has the necessary measures in place to prohibit the use of the
ozone-depleting substances for any other purpose than those designated in items (a)–(c) of paragraph 2 at
the time of production;
4. To request the Secretariat to continue to maintain a consolidated record of the cases covered by paragraph
2, to incorporate that record in the documentation prepared for each meeting of the Implementation
Committee, and to include it in the Secretariat’s report on data submitted by the parties in accordance
with Article 7 of the Protocol.
Decisions on the Implementation Committee
(a) to note the progress made by the Implementation Committee and to urge strongly that the Parties that
have not yet done so should submit without delay the data required by the Montreal Protocol;
(b) that those States, not forming part of a regional economic integration organization, which had reported
data jointly in the past should submit separate data in the future, and do so, if appropriate, in the context
of Decision III/7(a);
(c) that the period for data reporting is 1 January to 31 December (Article 7, paragraph 2) and that the control
period is 1 July to 30 June (Article 2, paragraph 1) and to request the Parties to report the data for both
periods;
(d) To endorse the recommendation on the categorization of the developing countries under paragraph 1 of
Article 5:
“In the light of the figures contained in the report on data (UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.2/1/3 and Add.1), the
recommendation contained in paragraph 14 (e) of the report of the Ad hoc Group of Experts on the
Reporting of Data (UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.2/1/4), the Committee determined that the following developing
countries should be temporarily categorized as not operating under Article 5, paragraph 1: Bahrain,
Malta, Singapore and United Arab Emirates. All other developing countries were considered to be
operating under Article 5, paragraph 1.”;
(e) to confirm the positions of Hungary, Japan, Norway, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uganda as members of
the Implementation Committee for one further year and to select Cameroon, Chile, Thailand, U.S.A. and
U.S.S.R. for a two year period.
353
Decision III/20: Composition of the Implementation Committee
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/20 to change paragraph 3 of Non-compliance Procedure as
in Annex III to the report of the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol:
“3. An Implementation Committee is hereby established. It shall consist of ten Parties elected by the Meeting
of the Parties for two years, based on equitable geographical distribution. Outgoing Parties may also be
re-elected for one immediate consecutive term.”.
Decision IV/6: Implementation Committee

MP DECISIONS
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/6 to confirm the positions of Cameroon, Chile, Russian
ARTICLE 8
Federation, Thailand and the United States as members of the Implementation Committee for one further year,
and to select Argentina, Austria, Bulgaria, Republic of Korea and Uganda for a two-year period.
Decision V/2: Implementation Committee
The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/2 to confirm the positions of Argentina, Austria, Bulgaria, the
Republic of Korea and Uganda as members of the Implementation Committee for one further year, and to select
Burkina Faso, Chile, Jordan, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation as members of the Committee for a
two-year period.
Decision VI/3: Implementation Committee
The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/3 to confirm the positions of Burkina Faso, Chile, Jordan,
the Netherlands and the Russian Federation as members of the Implementation Committee for one further year,
and to select Austria, Bulgaria, Peru, Philippines and the United Republic of Tanzania as members of the
Committee for a two-year period.
Decision VII/21: Membership of the Implementation Committee
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Implementation Committee;
2. To confirm the positions of Austria, Bulgaria, Peru, Philippines and the United Republic of Tanzania as
members of the Committee for one further year, and to select Canada, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Uruguay and
Zambia as members of the Committee for a two-year period.
Decision VIII/3: Membership of the Implementation Committee
2. To confirm the positions of Canada, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Uruguay and Zambia for one further year, and to
select Dominican Republic, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, and Lithuania as members of the Committee for
a two-year period.
Decision IX/12: Membership of the Implementation Committee
2. To confirm the positions of the Dominican Republic, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia and Lithuania for one
further year, and to select Bolivia, Kenya, Latvia, Pakistan and the United States of America as members
of the Committee for a two-year period.
354
Decision X/3: Membership of the Implementation Committee
2. To confirm the positions of Bolivia, Kenya, Latvia, Pakistan and the United States of America for one
further year and to select Antigua and Barbuda, Mali, Poland, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom as
members of the Committee for a two-year period.
Decision XI/8: Membership of the Implementation Committee
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Implementation Committee for 1999;
2. To confirm the positions of Mali, Poland, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom for one further year and
to select Argentina, Bangladesh, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt and United States of America as
members of the Committee for a two-year period.
Decision XII/3: Membership of the Implementation Committee
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Implementation Committee in the year 2000;
2. To confirm the positions of Argentina, Bangladesh, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt and the United
States of America for one further year and to select Senegal, Slovakia, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as members of the Committee for a two-year period from 1 January
2001;
3. To note the selection of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to serve as President
and of Bangladesh to serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Implementation Committee for one
year effective 1 January 2001.
Decision XII/13: Term of office of the Implementation Committee and its officers
1. To fix the term of office of the Committee and its officers as 1 January to 31 December each year;
2. To request the Committee elected each year by the Meeting of the Parties to elect its President and
Vice-President during the Meeting itself in order to ensure continuity of these two offices.
Decision XIII/26: Membership of the Implementation Committee
2. To confirm the positions of Senegal, Slovakia, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland for one further year and to select Australia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Ghana and
Jamaica as members of the Committee for a two-year period from 1 January 2002;
3. To note the selection of Bangladesh to serve as President and of Australia to serve as Vice-President and
Rapporteur of the Implementation Committee for one year effective 1 January 2002.
355
Decision XIV/12: Membership of the Implementation Committee
2. To confirm the positions of Australia, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Ghana, and Jamaica for one further year and
select Honduras, Italy, Lithuania, Maldives and Tunisia as members of the Committee for a two-year
period from 1 January 2003;
3. To note the selection of Australia to serve as President and of Jamaica to serve as Vice-President and
MP DECISIONS
Rapporteur of the Implementation Committee for one year effective 1 January 2003.
ARTICLE 8
Decision XIV/37: Interaction between the Executive Committee and the Implementation
Committee
Noting that the Multilateral Fund has an important responsibility for enabling compliance, but that without
national action, there can be no compliance,
Acknowledging that the Executive Committee, pursuant to the Multilateral Fund’s mandate “to enable
compliance” has a responsibility to consider both the current and forecasted compliance status of a country when
it reviews submissions connected with funding proposals and that, therefore, the Committee should work with
the Party to eliminate the duration of any possible non-compliance,
Mindful of the fact that the Executive Committee’s decisions to approve funding cannot be construed to condone
a Party’s non-compliance and that each Party continues to bear the responsibility to meet its obligations,
1. To request the Executive Committee to therefore make it clear that its funding decisions are always
without prejudice to a Party’s duty to meet its obligations under the Protocol, and are also without
prejudice to the operation of the mechanisms in the Protocol that exist for the treatment of Parties in non-
compliance. Accordingly, the Executive Committee should include language to this effect in its funding
decisions where non-compliance is potentially at issue;
2. To note that while the Implementation Committee may take into account information from the Executive
Committee consistent with paragraph 7(f) of the non-compliance procedure, the Executive Committee has
no formal role in the crafting of Implementation Committee recommendations;
3. To further note that in no case should any Implementation Committee action be construed as directly
requiring the Executive Committee to take any specific action regarding the funding of any specific
project;
4. To note that the Executive Committee and Implementation Committee are independent of each other.
However, pursuant to Article 10, the Multilateral Fund operates under the authority of the Parties and,
pursuant to the non-compliance procedure of the Montreal Protocol, the Implementation Committee
reports its recommendations to the Parties for possible decision.
Decision XV/13: Membership of the Implementation Committee
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Implementation Committee in 2003;
2. To confirm the positions of Honduras, Italy, Lithuania, the Maldives and Tunisia for a further one year
and select Australia, Belize, Ethiopia, Jordan and the Russian Federation as members of the Committee
for a two-year period from 1 January 2004;
356
3. To note the selection of Tunisia to serve as President and of Italy to serve as Vice-President and
Rapporteur of the Implementation Committee for one year with effect from 1 January 2004.
Decision XVI/42: Membership of the Implementation Committee
2. To confirm the positions of Australia, Belize, Ethiopia, Jordan and the Russian Federation for one further
year and to select Cameroon, Georgia, Guatemala, Nepal and the Netherlands as members of the
MP DECISIONS
Committee for a two-year period from 1 January 2005;
ARTICLE 8
3. To note the selection of the Netherlands to serve as President and of Jordan to serve as Vice-President
and Rapporteur, respectively, of the Implementation Committee for one year with effect from
1 January 2005.
Decision XVII/43: Membership of the Implementation Committee
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Implementation Committee in 2005;
2. To confirm the positions of Cameroon, Georgia, Guatemala, Nepal and the Netherlands for one further
year and to select Argentina, Lebanon, New Zealand, Nigeria and Poland as members of the Committee
for a two-year period from 1 January 2006;
3. To note the selection of Georgia to serve as President and of New Zealand to serve as Vice-President and
Rapporteur of the Implementation Committee for one year with effect from 1 January 2006.
Decision XVIII/1: Membership of the Implementation Committee
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance
Procedure of the Montreal Protocol in the year 2006;
2. To confirm the positions of Argentina, Lebanon, New Zealand, Nigeria and Poland as members of the
Committee for one further year and to select Bolivia, Georgia, India, Tunisia and the Netherlands as
members of the Committee for a two-year period from 1 January 2007;
3. To note the selection of New Zealand to serve as President and of Tunisia to serve as Vice-President and
Rapporteur, respectively, of the Implementation Committee for one year with effect from 1 January 2007.
Decision XIX/2: Membership of the Implementation Committee
Procedure of the Montreal Protocol in the year 2007;
2. To confirm the positions of Bolivia, Georgia, India, Tunisia and the Netherlands for one further year and
to select Jordan, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand and the Russian Federation as members of the
Committee for a two-year period commencing 1 January 2008;
3. To note the selection of Tunisia to serve as President and of the Russian Federation to serve as
Vice-President and Rapporteur, respectively, of the Implementation Committee for one year with effect
from 1 January 2008.
357
Decision XX/21: Membership of the Implementation Committee
Procedure for the Montreal Protocol in 2008;
2. To confirm the positions of Jordan, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand and the Russian Federation as
members of the Committee for one further year and to select Armenia, Germany, Nicaragua, Niger and
Sri Lanka as members of the Committee for a two-year period commencing 1 January 2009;
MP DECISIONS
3. To note the selection of Ms. Robyn Washbourne (New Zealand) to serve as President and of Mr. Ghazi
ARTICLE 8
Faleh Odat (Jordan) to serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Committee for one year
commencing 1 January 2009.
Decision XXI/16: Membership of the Implementation Committee
2. To confirm the positions of Armenia, Germany, Nicaragua, the Niger and Sri Lanka as members of the
Committee for one further year and to select Egypt, Jordan, St. Lucia, Russian Federation and United
States of America as members of the Committee for a two-year period beginning 1 January 2010;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Ezzat Lewis (Egypt) to serve as President and of Ms. Elisabeth Munzart
(Germany) to serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Committee for one year beginning on 1
January 2010.
Decision XXII/23: Membership of the Implementation Committee
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Implementation Committee under the Non-Compliance
2. To confirm the positions of Egypt, Jordan, the Russian Federation, Saint Lucia and the United States of
America as members of the Committee for one further year and to select Algeria, Armenia, Germany,
Nicaragua and Sri Lanka as members of the Committee for a two-year period beginning 1 January 2011;
3. To note the selection of Ms. Elisabeth Munzert (Germany) to serve as President and of Mr. Ghazi Al
Odat (Jordan) to serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Committee for one year beginning 1
January 2011.
Decision XXIII/18: Membership of the Implementation Committee
1. To note with appreciation the work carried out by the Implementation Committee under the Non-
Compliance Procedure for the Montreal Protocol in 2011;
2. To confirm the positions of Armenia, Germany, Guinea (replacing Algeria), Nicaragua and Sri Lanka as
members of the Committee for one further year and to select Lebanon, Poland, Saint Lucia, the United
States of America and Zambia as members of the Committee for a two-year period beginning on
1 January 2012;
358
3. To note the selection of Mr. W. L. Sumathipala (Sri Lanka) to serve as President and of Mr. Janusz
Kozakiewicz (Poland) to serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Committee for one year
beginning on 1 January 2012.
Decision XXIV/21: Membership of the Implementation Committee
1. To note with appreciation the work done in 2012 by the Implementation Committee under the Non-
Compliance Procedure for the Montreal Protocol;
MP DECISIONS
2. To confirm the positions of Lebanon, Poland, Saint Lucia, the United States of America and Zambia as
ARTICLE 8
members of the Committee for one further year and to select Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cuba,
Italy and Morocco as members of the Committee for a two-year period beginning 1 January 2013;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Janusz Kozakiewicz (Poland) to serve as President and of Ms. Azra Rogovic-
Grubic (Bosnia and Herzegovina) to serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Committee for one
year beginning 1 January 2013.
Decision XXV/17: Membership of the Implementation Committee
2. To confirm the positions of Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cuba, Italy and Morocco as members
of the Committee for one further year and to select Canada, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, Lebanon
and Poland as members of the Committee for a two-year period beginning on 1 January 2014;
3. To note the selection of Azra Rogović-Grubić (Bosnia and Herzegovina) to serve as President and
Elisabetta Scialanca (Italy) to serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Committee for one year
beginning on 1 January 2014.
Decision XXVI/18: Membership of the Implementation Committee
2. To confirm the positions of Canada, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, Lebanon and Poland as members of
the Committee for one further year and to select Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cuba, Mali, Italy and Pakistan
as members of the Committee for a two-year period beginning on 1 January 2015;
3. To note the selection of Ms. Elisabetta Scialanca (Italy) to serve as President and Mr. Mazen Hussein
(Lebanon) to serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Committee for one year beginning on 1
January 2015.
Decision XXVII/12: Membership of the Implementation Committee
2. To confirm the positions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cuba, Mali, Pakistan and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (replacing Italy) as members of the Committee for one further year and to
359
select Bangladesh, Canada, Haiti, Kenya and Romania as members of the Committee for a two-year period
beginning on 1 January 2016;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Iftikhar ul Hassan Shah (Pakistan) to serve as President and of Ms. Nancy
Seymour (Canada) to serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Committee for one year beginning on 1
January 2016.
Decisions on non-compliance: Albania
Decision XIV/18: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Albania

MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 8
1. To note that Albania ratified the Montreal Protocol on 8 October 1999. The country is classified as a
Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol but has not had its country programme approved by the
Executive Committee. However, the Executive Committee has approved $215,060 from the Multilateral
Fund to facilitate compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Albania’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 41 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 62 and
69 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and 2001 respectively, and consumption of 58
ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to
30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Albania was in non-
compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To request that Albania submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Albania may wish to consider including in this plan
of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out
schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure
progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Albania with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances.
To the degree that Albania is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it
should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Albania
should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance
with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of
non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Albania, in accordance with item B
of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner,
the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These
measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply
of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing
to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decision XV/26: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Albania
1. To note that, in accordance with decision XIV/18 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Albania was
requested to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to
ensure a prompt return to compliance;
2. To note with appreciation Albania’s submission of its plan of action, and to note further that, under the
plan, Albania specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing CFC consumption from 69 ODP-tonnes in 2001 as follows:
(i) To 68.0 ODP-tonnes in 2003;
(ii) To 61.2 ODP-tonnes in 2004;
360
(iii) To 36.2 ODP-tonnes in 2005;
(iv) To 15.2 ODP-tonnes in 2006;
(v) To 6.2 ODP-tonnes in 2007;
(vi) To 2.2 ODP-tonnes in 2008;
(vii) To phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2009, as provided in the plan for reduction and
phase out of CFC consumption, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
MP DECISIONS
(b) To establishing, by 2004, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas;
ARTICLE 8
(c) To banning, by 2004, imports of ODS-using equipment;
3. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above should enable Albania to return to compliance by
2006, and to urge Albania to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of
action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I;
4. To monitor closely the progress of Albania with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that Albania is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that
regard, Albania should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those
commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting
of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution
Albania, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to
return to compliance in a timely manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the
indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and
that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Argentina
Decision XIII/21: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Argentina
1. To note that Argentina ratified the Montreal Protocol on 18 September 1990, the London Amendment on
4 December 1992, the Copenhagen Amendment on 20 April 1995, and the Montreal Amendment on
15 February 2001. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and its
country programme was approved by the Executive Committee in 1994. Since approval of the country
programme, the Executive Committee has approved $43,287,750 from the Multilateral Fund to enable
compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Argentina’s production baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 2,745.3 ODP tonnes. Argentina
reported production of 3,101 and 3,027 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 1999 and 2000
respectively. Argentina responded to the Ozone Secretariat’s request for data regarding the control period
1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. Argentina reported production of 3,065 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I
controlled substances for the production freeze control period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. As a
consequence, for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, Argentina was in non-compliance with
its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To request that Argentina submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Argentina may wish to consider including in its
plan actions to establish production quotas that will freeze production at baseline levels and support the
phase-out;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Argentina with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances.
To the degree that Argentina is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures,
361
Argentina should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard,
Argentina should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in
accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties
in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Argentina, in
accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to return
to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the
indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and
that importing Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Armenia

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
Decision XIII/18: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia
1. To note that Armenia is in non-compliance with data reporting requirement under Article 7 of the
Protocol, based on which compliance with the phase-out schedule is determined;
2. To note that ratification of the London Amendment is required to qualify for financial assistance from
international funding agencies;
3. To recommend that, should Armenia ratify the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol,
international funding agencies should consider favourably the provision of financial assistance to
Armenia for projects to phase out ozone-depleting substances in that country.
Decision XIV/31: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia
1. To note that Armenia has reported data on consumption of substances in Annex A to the Montreal
Protocol in 2000 above control levels as provided in Article 2 of the Protocol, and therefore that Armenia
is in non-compliance with the control measures under Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol in 2000;
2. To note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/18 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, Armenia was
requested to ratify the London Amendment as a precondition for Global Environment Facility (GEF)
funding, and that this has not occurred;
3. To further note that since Armenia has applied for reclassification as a developing country operating
under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, the Implementation Committee should review the situation of
Armenia after this matter is resolved.
Decision XV/27: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia
1. To note that Armenia has now been reclassified as a developing country under decision XIV/2 of the
Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties;
2. To note that ratification of the London Amendment is a precondition for Multilateral Fund funding, and
therefore to call upon Armenia expeditiously to complete its process of ratification of the London
Amendment;
3. To note further, however, that despite the absence of financial assistance, Armenia has reported data
showing it to be in compliance with the freeze on CFC consumption, and to congratulate Armenia on its
achievements.
362
Decision XVII/25: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia and request for a
plan of action
1. To note that Armenia ratified the Montreal Protocol on 1 October 1999 and is classified as a Party
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, and that the Council of the Global Environment
Facility has approved $2,090,000 to enable Armenia’s compliance;
2. To note further that Armenia has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex E
(methyl bromide) for 2004 of 1.020 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
MP DECISIONS
consumption level of zero ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that Armenia is
ARTICLE 8
therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for methyl bromide under the Protocol;
3. To request Armenia, as a matter of urgency, to submit to the Implementation Committee for consideration
at its next meeting a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to
compliance. Armenia may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import
quotas to support the phase-out schedule, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress
in achieving the phase-out;
4. To monitor closely the progress of Armenia with regard to the phase-out of the controlled substance in
Annex E (methyl bromide). To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific
Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good
standing. In that regard, Armenia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
its commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Meeting
of the Parties cautions Armenia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the
event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider
measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the
possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of the controlled
substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) that is the substance that is the subject of non-compliance is
ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decision XVIII/20: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia
1. To note that Armenia ratified the Montreal Protocol on 1 October 1999 and the London and Copenhagen
Amendments to the Protocol on 26 November 2003 and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph
1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;
2. To note also that the Council of the Global Environment Facility has approved $2,090,000 to enable
Armenia’s compliance with the Protocol;
3. To note further that Armenia has reported annual consumption for the Annex E controlled substance
consumption level of zero ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that Armenia is
therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for methyl bromide under the Protocol;
4. To note with appreciation Armenia’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures and to note that, under the plan, without
prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Armenia specifically commits
itself:
(a) To maintain methyl bromide consumption at no more than zero ODP-tonnes from 2007, save for
critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties after 1 January 2015;
363
(b) To introduce by 1 July 2007 a system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting
substances that includes import quotas;
5. To note that Armenia has reported methyl bromide consumption for 2005 that demonstrates its return to
compliance in that year and to congratulate the Party on that achievement, but also to note the Party’s
concern that, until the measures contained in subparagraph 4 (b) of the present decision come into force,
the Party cannot be confident of its ability to sustain its return to compliance, and therefore to urge
Armenia to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the remainder of the plan of
action to sustain its phase-out of consumption of methyl bromide;
6. To monitor closely the progress of Armenia with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
MP DECISIONS
the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the
ARTICLE 8
specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good
standing. In that regard, Armenia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties
caution Armenia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails
to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of
measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as
ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that
exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Azerbaijan
Decision X/20: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Azerbaijan
1. To note that Azerbaijan ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on
21 June 1996. The country is classified as a non-Article 5 Party under the Protocol and, for 1996, reported
positive consumption of 962 ODP tonnes of Annex A and B substances, none of which was for essential
uses exempted by the Parties. As a consequence, in 1996, Azerbaijan was in non-compliance with its
control obligations under Articles 2A through 2E of the Montreal Protocol. Azerbaijan also expresses a
belief that this situation will continue through at least the year 2000, necessitating annual review by the
Implementation Committee and the Parties until such time as Azerbaijan comes into compliance;
2. To express great concern about Azerbaijan’s non-compliance and to note that Azerbaijan only very
recently assumed the obligations of the Montreal Protocol, having ratified it in 1996. It is with that
understanding that the Parties note, after reviewing the country programme and submissions of
Azerbaijan (which was prepared with UNEP assistance), that Azerbaijan specifically commits:
– To a phase-out of CFCs by 1 January 2001 (save for essential uses authorized by the Parties);
– To establish, by 1 January 1999, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS;
– To establish a system for licensing operators in the refrigeration-servicing sector;
– To tax the imports of ozone-depleting substances, to enable it to ensure that it meets the year 2001
phase-out;
– To a ban, by 1 January 2001, on all imports of halons; and
– To consider by 1999, a ban on the import of ODS-based equipment;
3. That the measures listed in paragraph 2 above should enable Azerbaijan to achieve the virtual phase out
of CFCs, and a complete phase-out of halons by 1 January 2001. In this regard, the Parties urge
Azerbaijan to work with relevant Implementing Agencies to shift current consumption to non-ozone-
depleting alternatives, and to quickly develop a system for managing banked halon for any continuing
critical uses. The Parties note that these actions are made all the more urgent due to the expected closure
364
of CFC and halon-2402 production capacity in its major source (Russian Federation) by the year 2000,
and the very limited international availability of halon-2402 from other sources;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Azerbaijan with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances,
particularly towards meeting the specific commitments noted above. In this regard, the Parties request
that Azerbaijan submit a complete copy of its country programme, and subsequent updates, if any, to the
Ozone Secretariat. To the degree that Azerbaijan is working towards and meeting the specific time-based
commitments noted above and continues to report data annually demonstrating a decrease in imports and
consumption, Azerbaijan should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In
this regard, Azerbaijan should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these
commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution
MP DECISIONS
Azerbaijan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country
ARTICLE 8
fails to meet the commitments noted above in the times specified, the Parties shall consider measures,
consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures could include the possibility of
actions that may be available under Article 4, designed to ensure that the supply of CFCs and halons that
is the subject of non-compliance is ceased, and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing
situation of non-compliance.
Decision XV/28: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Azerbaijan
1. To note that, under decision X/20, Azerbaijan committed itself, among other things, to a complete phase-
out of Annex A, group I substances, and to a ban on imports of Annex A, group II substances, by 1
January 2001, in order to ensure its return to compliance with its obligations under Articles 2A and 2B of
the Montreal Protocol;
2. To note that data submitted for both 2001 and 2002 showed consumption of CFCs putting Azerbaijan in
non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol, and also that it has failed
to report on the implementation of its ban on imports of halons;
3. To note further that Azerbaijan has undertaken to ban consumption of CFCs from January 2003;
4. To urge Azerbaijan to report its 2003 consumption data to the Secretariat as soon as they become
available, along with a report on the status of its commitment to ban imports of halons, and to request the
Implementation Committee to review the situation of Azerbaijan at its next meeting.
Decision XVI/21: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Azerbaijan
1. To recall that, under decision X/20, Azerbaijan committed itself, among other things, to a complete
phase-out of Annex A, group I, substances (CFCs), and to a ban on imports of Annex A, group II,
substances (halons), by 1 January 2001, in order to ensure its return to compliance with its obligations
under Articles 2A and 2B of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To note with appreciation that Azerbaijan prohibited the import of halons in 1999, in accordance with
decision X/20;
3. To note with great concern, however, that data submitted for 2001, 2002 and 2003 show consumption of
CFCs that places Azerbaijan in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal
Protocol;
4. To note also that Azerbaijan has not fulfilled its undertaking, contained in decision XV/28, to ban the
consumption of CFCs from January 2003;
365
5. To note Azerbaijan’s undertaking that complete phase-out of CFCs would be achieved by 1 January 2005
and to urge Azerbaijan to confirm its introduction of a ban on the import of CFCs, to support that
undertaking;
6. To urge Azerbaijan to report its 2004 consumption data to the Secretariat as soon as they become
available, and to request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of Azerbaijan at its thirty-
fourth meeting.
Decision XVII/26: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Azerbaijan

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
1. To note that Azerbaijan ratified the Montreal Protocol, London and Copenhagen Amendments on 21 June
1996, and the Montreal Amendment on 28 September 2000, and is classified as a Party not operating
under Article 5 of the Protocol. The Council of the Global Environment Facility has approved $6.867
million to enable Azerbaijan’s compliance;
2. To note with appreciation that Azerbaijan has confirmed the introduction of a ban on the import of
controlled substances in Annex A group I (CFCs), in accordance with decision XVI/21, but also note with
concern that the Party did not achieve total phase out of these controlled substances by 1 January 2005 in
accordance with that decision;
3. To further note that Azerbaijan had expressed reservations as to its ability to enforce its import ban given
its lack of expertise in the tracking of ozone-depleting substances, and recall that Azerbaijan was not able
to fulfil its commitments contained in decision X/20 and decision XV/28 to achieve total phase-out of
Annex A, group I, controlled substances (CFCs) by 1 January 2001 and 1 January 2003, respectively;
4. To note with appreciation, however, the Party’s action in cooperation with UNEP to seek further
assistance from the Global Environment Facility to address this situation and to request Azerbaijan to
report to the Secretariat on the status of this initiative, in time for the Committee’s consideration at its
next meeting;
5. To agree, in the light of Azerbaijan’s recurrent inability to return to compliance with the Protocol in
accordance with the decisions of the Meetings of the Parties and the Party’s reservations as to its capacity
to enforce its newly introduced ban on the import of controlled substances in Annex A group I (CFCs), to
request exporting Parties to assist Azerbaijan implement its commitment by ceasing export of those
controlled substances to that Party, and to further caution Azerbaijan in accordance with item B of the
indicative list of measures that, in the event that the Party does not achieve total phase out of Annex A,
group I, controlled substances (CFC) by 1 January 2006, the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties shall
consider implementation of item C of the indicative measures, which could include action available under
Article 4 to cease supply of Annex A, group I, controlled substances (CFCs) to Azerbaijan.
Decision XXV/10: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Azerbaijan
Noting that Azerbaijan ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the London
Amendment and the Copenhagen Amendment on 12 June 1996, the Montreal Amendment on 28 September
2000 and the Beijing Amendment on 31 August 2012, and is classified as a party not operating under paragraph
1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting also that the Global Environment Facility approved $9,706,515 to enable Azerbaijan to achieve
compliance with the Protocol,
Noting further that Azerbaijan had reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex C, group
I (hydrochlorofluorocarbons), for 2011 of 7.63 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the party’s maximum allowable
consumption of 3.7 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and was therefore in
non-compliance with the consumption control measures under the Protocol for hydrochlorofluorocarbons,
366
Noting Azerbaijan’s submission of a plan of action for returning to compliance with the Protocol’s control
measures for hydrochlorofluorocarbons,
Noting also that the party’s submission of ozone-depleting-substance data for 2012 showed that Azerbaijan was
in compliance with its hydrochlorofluorocarbon consumption obligations under the control measures of the
Protocol,
1. That no further action is necessary in view of the party’s return to compliance with the
hydrochlorofluorocarbon phase-out in 2012 and its implementation of regulatory, administrative and
technical measures to ensure compliance with the Protocol’s control measures for
hydrochlorofluorocarbons;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
2. To urge Azerbaijan to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action for
the consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons;
3. To monitor closely the party’s progress with regard to the implementation of its obligations under the
Protocol.
Decisions on non-compliance: Bahamas
Decision XIV/19: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bahamas
1. To note that Bahamas ratified the Montreal Protocol, the London Amendment and the Copenhagen
Amendment on 4 May 1993. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the
Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1996. Since approval
of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $658,487 from the Multilateral Fund
to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Bahamas’ baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 65 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 66

ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and consumption of 87 ODP-tonnes of Annex A,
Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. As a
consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Bahamas was in non-compliance with its
obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To request that Bahamas submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Bahamas may wish to consider including in this
plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the
phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will
ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Bahamas with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances.
To the degree that Bahamas is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it
should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Bahamas
non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Bahamas, in accordance with item B
367
Decisions on non-compliance: Bangladesh
[Also see Decisions XIII/16 and XVI/20, under ‘Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties’]
Decision XIV/29: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bangladesh
1. To note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/16 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, the
Implementation Committee requested the Secretariat to write to Bangladesh since it had reported data on
CFC consumption for either the year 1999 and/or 2000 that was above its baseline, and was therefore in a
MP DECISIONS
state of potential non-compliance;

ARTICLE 8
2. To further note that Bangladesh’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 580 ODP-tonnes. It
reported consumption of 805 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000, and consumption of
740 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July
2000 to 30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Bangladesh was
in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To note, however, that the information provided to the Implementation Committee by both Bangladesh
and UNDP shows that Bangladesh is expected to return to compliance in the control period 1 July 2001-
31 December 2002;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Bangladesh with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting
substances. To the degree that Bangladesh is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control
measures, Bangladesh should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In
this regard, Bangladesh should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these
Bangladesh, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to
return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of
the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under
Decision XVII/27: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bangladesh
1. To note that Bangladesh ratified the Montreal Protocol on 2 August 1990, the London Amendment on 18
March 1994, the Copenhagen Amendment on 27 November 2000 and the Montreal Amendment on 27
July 2001 and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its
country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in September 1994. The Executive Committee has approved
$1,852,164 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of
the Protocol;
2. To note also that Bangladesh’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl
chloroform), is 0.8667 ODP-tonnes. As the Party reported consumption of 0.892 ODP-tonnes of methyl
chloroform in 2003, it was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2E of the Montreal
Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Bangladesh’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s methyl chloroform control measures and to note that, under the plan,
without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Bangladesh specifically
commits itself:
(a) To maintain methyl chloroform consumption at no more than the 2004 level of 0.550 ODP-tonnes
from 2005 until 2009, and then to reduce methyl chloroform consumption as follows:
368
(ii) To zero ODP-tonnes in 2015, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for essential uses
that may be authorized by the Parties after that date;
(b) To monitor its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances,
which includes import quotas;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above have already enabled Bangladesh to return to
compliance in 2004, to congratulate the country on that progress and to urge it to work with the relevant
implementing agencies to implement the remainder of the plan of action and to phase out consumption of
the controlled substance in Annex B, group III;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
5. To monitor closely the progress of Bangladesh with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of methyl chloroform. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the
standing. In that regard, Bangladesh should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to
meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken
by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the
Parties caution Bangladesh, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event
that it fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the
indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article
4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl chloroform that is the substance that is the subject of non-
compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-
compliance.
Decision XXI/17: Non-compliance in 2007 and 2008 with the provisions of the Protocol
(chlorofluorocarbons), by Bangladesh
Noting that Bangladesh ratified the Montreal Protocol on 2 August 1990, the London Amendment on 18 March
1994, the Copenhagen Amendment on 27 November 2000 and the Montreal Amendment on 27 July 2001, and is
classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting also that the Executive Committee has approved $6,339,765 from the Multilateral Fund to enable
Bangladesh’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol,
1. That Bangladesh reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I
(chlorofluorocarbons), of 154.9 ODP-tonnes for 2007 and 158.3 ODP-tonnes for 2008, which exceeds the
Party’s maximum allowable consumption of 87.2 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for those
years, and that the Party is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for those substances
under the Protocol for those years;
2. To note with appreciation Bangladesh’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s chlorofluorocarbon control measures under which, without prejudice to
the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Bangladesh specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing chlorofluorocarbon consumption to no greater than:
(i) 140 ODP-tonnes in 2009;
(ii) Zero ODP-tonnes in 2010, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
(b) To monitoring its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances,
including import quotas;
369
3. To urge Bangladesh to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to
phase out consumption of chlorofluorocarbons;
4. To monitor closely the progress of Bangladesh with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the
standing. In that regard, Bangladesh should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to
by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance;
5. To caution Bangladesh, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by
MP DECISIONS
a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance
ARTICLE 8
the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those
of chlorofluorocarbons that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not
contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Belarus
[Also see Decision XIV/28, under ‘Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties’]
Decision VII/17: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Belarus
1. To note that the Implementation Committee took cognizance of the joint statement made by Belarus,
Bulgaria, Poland, the Russian Federation and Ukraine regarding possible non-fulfilment of their
obligations under the Montreal Protocol, as a submission under paragraph 4 of the non-compliance
procedure of Article 8 of the Protocol, and the statement made by the Russian Federation on its behalf
and on behalf of Belarus, Bulgaria and Ukraine at the twelfth meeting of the Open-ended Working
Group;
2. To note the consultations of the Implementation Committee with the representatives of Belarus regarding
possible non-fulfilment of that Party’s obligations under the Montreal Protocol;
3. To note that Belarus was in compliance with its obligations under the Montreal Protocol in 1995 and that
there is a possibility of non-compliance in 1996 so that the Implementation Committee might have to
revert to that question that year;
4. To note that Belarus agreed to submit its country programme for the phase-out of ozone-depleting
substances in Belarus to the Secretariat by 31 December 1995;
5. To note that Belarus promised to provide information on the political commitment on the phase-out
programme for ozone-depleting substances by Belarus and that the Implementation Committee after
evaluation of the information might wish to request additional information on certain elements, such as:
(a) The political commitment on the phase-out plan for ozone-depleting substances by Belarus;
(b) The necessary linkages between the sectoral approach outlined by Belarus in its submission and the
specific requirements for the financial, institutional and administrative arrangements towards the
implementation of such measures;
(c) The gradual achievement of the proposed phase-out plan;
(d) The proposed measures for the enforcement of the measures – in particular the enforcement of the
trade regulations;
370
6. To note that Belarus has agreed not to export any virgin, recycled or recovered substance controlled under
the Montreal Protocol to any Party operating under Article 2 of the Protocol not member of the
Commonwealth of Independent States and that such Parties shall not import such controlled substances
from Belarus;
7. To recommend international assistance to enable compliance of Belarus with the Montreal Protocol in
line with the following provisions:
(a) Such support should be provided in consultation with the relevant Montreal Protocol Secretariats
and the Implementation Committee to ensure consistency of ODS phase-out measures with relevant
decisions of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and subsequent recommendations of the
Implementation Committee;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
(b) Belarus shall submit annual reports on ODS phase-out progress in line with the schedule included in
the country programme for the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances in Belarus;
(c) The reports shall be submitted in due time to enable the Ozone Secretariat – together with the
Implementation Committee – to review them;
(d) In case of any questions related to the reporting requirements and the actions of Belarus, the
disbursement of the international assistance should be contingent on the settlement of those
problems with the Implementation Committee;
8. To note that despite the economic difficulties of the period of transition, Belarus will endeavour to settle
its financial contributions to the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol in the near future.
Decision X/21: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Belarus
1. To note that Belarus ratified the London Amendment on 10 July 1996. The country is classified as a non-
Article 5 Party under the Protocol and, for 1996, reported positive consumption of 599.7 ODP tonnes of
Annex A and B substances, none of which was for essential uses exempted by the Parties. As a
consequence, in 1996, Belarus was in non-compliance with its control obligations under Articles 2A
through 2E of the Montreal Protocol. Belarus also expresses a belief that this situation will continue
through at least the year 2000, necessitating annual review by the Implementation Committee and the
Parties until such time as Belarus comes into compliance;
2. To note that although Belarus submitted a list of specific projects with international financing that will
reduce national consumption, it has not responded to the request of the Implementation Committee from
its twentieth meeting for a phase-out plan with specific benchmarks demonstrating a schedule for coming
into compliance with control obligations under Articles 2A through 2E of the Montreal Protocol. The
Parties also note that in a verbal presentation to the Implementation Committee on 16 November 1998,
Belarus announced the recent adoption, on 13 November 1998, of a resolution by its Cabinet of Ministers
committing Belarus, through regulation:
– To a phase-out in the consumption of Annex A and B substances by 1 January 2000.
However, Belarus noted that there may be difficulty in phasing out consumption for refrigeration
associated with agriculture;
3. To closely monitor the progress of Belarus with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances,
that Belarus submit a complete copy of its country programme, and subsequent updates, if any, to the
Ozone Secretariat. To the degree that Belarus is working towards and meeting the specific time-based
consumption, Belarus should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In
this regard, Belarus should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision the Parties caution
371
Belarus, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country
Decisions on non-compliance: Belize
Decision XIII/22: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Belize

MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 8
1. To note that Belize ratified the Montreal Protocol, London Amendment, and Copenhagen Amendment on
9 January 1998. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had
its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1999. Since approval of the country
programme, the Executive Committee has approved $327,841 from the Multilateral Fund to enable
2. Belize’s consumption baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 16 ODP tonnes. Belize reported
consumption of 25 and 9 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 1999 and 2000 respectively.
Belize responded to the Ozone Secretariat’s request for data for the control period 1 July 1999 to
30 June 2000. Belize reported consumption of 20 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I controlled substances
for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. As a consequence, for the
control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, Belize was in non-compliance with its obligations under
Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To request that Belize submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Belize may wish to consider including in its plan
actions to establish import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule,
to establish a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and to put in place policy and regulatory instruments
that ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Belize with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To
the degree that Belize is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Belize
should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Belize should
continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with
item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-
compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Belize, in accordance with item B of the
indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to return to compliance in a timely
manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.
These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the
supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that importing Parties are not
Decision XIV/33: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Belize
1. To note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/22 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, Belize was
2. Belize’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 24.4 ODP-tonnes, having been modified in
accordance with Decision XIV/27. It reported consumption of 16 ODP-tonnes in 2000 and 28 ODP-
tonnes in 2001, and consumption of 40 ODP-tonnes for the control period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001,
placing Belize clearly in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
372
3. To express concern about Belize’s non-compliance but to note that it has submitted a plan of action with
time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. It is with that understanding that the
Parties note, after reviewing the plan of action submitted by Belize, that Belize specifically commits
itself:
(a) To reduce CFC consumption from the current level of 28 ODP tonnes in 2001 as follows:
(i) To 24.4 ODP tonnes in 2003;
(ii) To 20 ODP tonnes in 2004;
MP DECISIONS
(iii) To 12.2 ODP tonnes in 2005;
ARTICLE 8
(iv) To 10 ODP tonnes in 2006;
(v) To 3.66 ODP tonnes in 2007; and
(vi) To phase out CFC consumption by 1 January 2008 as provided under the Montreal Protocol
save for essential uses that might be authorized by the Parties;
(b) To establish, by 1 January 2003, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS;
(c) To ban, by 1 January 2004, imports of ODS-using equipment;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Belize to return to compliance by
2003. In this regard, the Parties urge Belize to work with relevant implementing agencies to phase out
consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A Group I;
5. To closely monitor the progress of Belize with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To
the degree that Belize is working towards and meeting the specific commitments noted above in
paragraph 3, Belize should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this
regard, Belize should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments
in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the
Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Belize, in
accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to
compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the
indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article
4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that
Decisions on non-compliance: Bolivia
Decision XIV/20: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bolivia
1. To note that Bolivia ratified the Montreal Protocol, the London Amendment and the Copenhagen
Amendment on 3 October 1994, and the Montreal Amendment on 12 April 1999. The country is
classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme
approved by the Executive Committee in 1995. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive
Committee has approved $1,428,767 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with
2. Bolivia’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 76 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 79 and
77 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and 2001 respectively, and consumption of 78
ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to
30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Bolivia was in non-
373
3. To request that Bolivia submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Bolivia may wish to consider including in this plan
4. To closely monitor the progress of Bolivia with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To
the degree that Bolivia is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Bolivia
should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Bolivia
non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Bolivia, in accordance with item B
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and exporting Parties are not contributing to a
continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decision XV/29: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bolivia
1. To note that, in accordance with decision XIV/20 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Bolivia was
2. To note with appreciation Bolivia’s submission of its plan of action, and to note further that under the
plan, Bolivia specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing CFC consumption from 65.5 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:
(v) To phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol,
save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
(b) To monitoring its system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas, introduced in
2003;
(c) To monitoring its ban on imports of ODS-using equipment, introduced in 1997 for CFC-12 and
extended to other ODS in 2003;
3. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above have already enabled Bolivia to return to
compliance, to congratulate Bolivia on that progress, and to urge Bolivia to work with the relevant
implementing agencies to implement the remainder of the plan of action and phase out consumption of
ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I;
4. To monitor closely the progress of Bolivia with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that Bolivia is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
regard, Bolivia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments
in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties
in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Bolivia, in
374
accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to remain in
compliance the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.
Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the
supply of CFCs (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not
Decisions on non-compliance: Bosnia and Herzegovina
[Also see Decision XVI/20, under ‘Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties’]
Decision XIV/21: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bosnia and Herzegovina
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
1. To note that Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the Montreal Protocol on 6 March 1992. The country is
classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme
approved by the Executive Committee in 1999. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive
2. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 24 ODP-tonnes. It reported
consumption of 176 and 200 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and 2001 respectively.
As a consequence, Bosnia and Herzegovina was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A
of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To request that Bosnia and Herzegovina submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with
time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Bosnia and Herzegovina may wish to
consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline
levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory
instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina with regard to the phase-out of
ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Bosnia and Herzegovina is working towards and meeting
the specific Protocol control measures, Bosnia and Herzegovina should continue to be treated in the same
manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Bosnia and Herzegovina should continue to receive
international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the
indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance.
However, through this decision, the Parties caution Bosnia and Herzegovina, in accordance with item B
Decision XV/30: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bosnia and Herzegovina
1. To note that, in accordance with decision XIV/21 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Bosnia and
Herzegovina was requested to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action, with time-
specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance;
2. To note with appreciation Bosnia and Herzegovina’s submission of its plan of action, and to note further
that, under the plan, Bosnia and Herzegovina specifically commits itself:
375
(ii) To 167 ODP-tonnes in 2004;
(iv) To 33 ODP-tonnes in 2006;
(v) To 3 ODP-tonnes in 2007;
(vi) To phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2008, as provided in the plan for reduction and
phase-out of CFC consumption, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
MP DECISIONS
(b) To reducing methyl bromide consumption from 11.8 ODP-tonnes in 2002, as follows:
ARTICLE 8
(i) To 5.61 ODP-tonnes in 2005 and in 2006;
(ii) To phasing out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2007, as provided in the plan for
reduction and phase-out of methyl bromide consumption, save for critical uses that may be
authorized by the Parties;
(c) To establishing, by 2004, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas;
(d) To banning, by 2006, imports of ODS-using equipment;
3. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above should enable Bosnia and Herzegovina to return to
compliance by 2008, and to urge Bosnia and Herzegovina to work with the relevant implementing
agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in
Annex A, group I and Annex E;
4. To monitor closely the progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina with regard to the implementation of its plan
of action and the phase-out of CFCs and methyl bromide. To the degree that Bosnia and Herzegovina is
working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in
the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Bosnia and Herzegovina should continue to
receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the
indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance.
Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Bosnia and Herzegovina, in accordance with
item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely
manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those
of CFCs and methyl bromide (that is, the subjects of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties
are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decision XVII/28: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bosnia and Herzegovina
1. To note that Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the Montreal Protocol on 1 September 1993 and the
London, Copenhagen and Montreal amendments on 11 August 2003, is classified as a Party operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive
Committee in March 1999. The Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of
the Montreal Protocol has approved $2,900,771 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s
2. To note also that Bosnia and Herzegovina’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III
(methyl chloroform), is 1.548 ODP-tonnes. As the Party reported consumption of 3.600 ODP-tonnes of
methyl chloroform in 2003 and consumption of 2.44 ODP-tonnes of methyl chloroform in 2004, it was in
non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2E of the Montreal Protocol;
376
3. To note with appreciation Bosnia and Herzegovina’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt
return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl chloroform control measures, and to note that, under the
plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Bosnia and
Herzegovina specifically commits itself:
(a) To reduce methyl chloroform consumption from 2.44 ODP-tonnes in 2004 as follows:
(ii) To zero ODP-tonnes in 2006, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties after
1 January 2015;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
(b) To establish a system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, which
includes import quotas, by the end of January 2006;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Bosnia and Herzegovina to return to
compliance in 2006 and to urge Bosnia and Herzegovina to work with the relevant implementing
agencies to implement its plan of action and phase out consumption of the controlled substance in Annex
B, group III;
of action and the phase-out of methyl chloroform. To the degree that the Party is working towards and
meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a
Party in good standing. In that regard, Bosnia and Herzegovina should continue to receive international
assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of
measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the
present decision, however, the Parties caution Bosnia and Herzegovina, in accordance with item B of the
indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider
possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl chloroform that
is the substance that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not
Decision XXI/18: Non-compliance in 2007 and 2008 with the provisions of the Protocol
(chlorofluorocarbons), by Bosnia and Herzegovina
Noting that Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the Montreal Protocol on 30 November 1993 and the London,
Copenhagen and Montreal Amendments on 11 August 2003 and is classified as a Party operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting also that the Executive Committee has approved $3,421,231 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Bosnia
and Herzegovina’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol,
1. That Bosnia and Herzegovina reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A,
group I (chlorofluorocarbons), of 22.1 ODP-tonnes for 2007 and 8.8 ODP-tonnes for 2008, which
exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption of 3.6 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances
for those years, and that the Party is therefore in non compliance with the control measures for those
substances under the Protocol for those years;
2. To note with appreciation Bosnia and Herzegovina’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt
return to compliance with the Protocol’s chlorofluorocarbon control measures under which, without
prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Bosnia and Herzegovina
specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing chlorofluorocarbon consumption to no greater than:
377
(i) Zero ODP-tonnes in 2009;
3. To urge Bosnia and Herzegovina to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan
of action to phase out consumption of chlorofluorocarbons;
MP DECISIONS
of action and the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons. To the degree that the Party is working towards and
ARTICLE 8
Party in good standing. In that regard, Bosnia and Herzegovina should continue to receive international
measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance;
5. To caution Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may
be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that, in the event that it fails to return
to compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of
ensuring that the supply of chlorofluorocarbons that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that
Decision XXVII/10: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bosnia and Herzegovina
Noting that Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
on 1 September 1993, the London Amendment, the Copenhagen Amendment and the Montreal Amendment on
11 August 2003 and the Beijing Amendment on 11 October 2011 and is classified as a party operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting also that the Executive Committee has approved $4,154,601 from the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol to enable Bosnia and
Herzegovina to achieve compliance with the Protocol,
1. That Bosnia and Herzegovina reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex C,
group I (hydrochlorofluorocarbons), for 2013 of 5.13 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the party’s maximum
allowable consumption of 4.7 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and was therefore
in non-compliance with the consumption control measures under the Protocol for
2. To note with appreciation the submission by Bosnia and Herzegovina of a plan of action to ensure its
return to compliance with the Protocol’s hydrochlorofluorocarbon consumption control measures in 2014
and subsequent years;
3. To note also with appreciation that the party submitted an explanation for its non-compliance, which
confirmed that it had introduced a comprehensive set of measures necessary to ensure future compliance;
4. That the party’s submission of ozone-depleting-substance data for 2014 showed that Bosnia and
Herzegovina was in compliance with its hydrochlorofluorocarbon consumption obligations under the
control measures of the Protocol;
5. That no further action is necessary in view of the party’s return to compliance with the
hydrochlorofluorocarbon phase-out in 2014 and its implementation of regulatory and administrative
measures to ensure compliance with the Protocol’s control measures for hydrochlorofluorocarbons for
subsequent years;
378
Protocol.
Decisions on non-compliance: Botswana
Decision XV/31: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Botswana
1. To note that Botswana ratified the Montreal Protocol on 4 December 1991, and the London and
Copenhagen Amendments on 13 May 1997. Botswana is classified as a Party operating under Article 5,
MP DECISIONS
paragraph 1, of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in
ARTICLE 8
1994. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $438,340 from
the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. To note also that Botswana’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E is 0.1 ODP-tonnes. It
reported consumption of 0.6 ODP-tonnes of the controlled substance in Annex E in 2002. As a
consequence, for 2002 Botswana was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the
Montreal Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Botswana’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
compliance with the control measures for the controlled substance in Annex E, and to note further that,
under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol,
Botswana specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing methyl bromide consumption from 0.6 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:
(iii) To phasing out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2005, as provided by the plan for
(b) To establishing a system for licensing imports and exports of methyl bromide, including quotas;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Botswana to return to compliance by
2005, and to urge Botswana to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of
action and phase out consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Botswana with regard to the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the
degree that Botswana is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should
continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Botswana should
continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with
item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-
compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Botswana, in accordance with
manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those
of methyl bromide (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not
379
Decisions on non-compliance: Bulgaria
Decision VII/16: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bulgaria
Bulgaria, Poland, the Russian Federation and Ukraine at the eleventh meeting of the Open-ended
Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol regarding possible non-fulfilment of their
procedure of Article 8 of the Protocol;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
2. To note the consultations of the Implementation Committee with the representative of Bulgaria regarding
3. To note that Bulgaria was in compliance with its obligations under the Montreal Protocol in 1995 and that
revert to that question that year.
Decision XI/24: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bulgaria
1. To note that Bulgaria acceded to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol on 20 November
1990 and acceded to the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 28 April 1999. The country is
classified as a non-Article 5 Party under the Protocol and, for 1997, reported positive consumption of 1.6
ODP tonnes of Annex A Group II substances, none of which was for essential uses exempted by the
Parties. As a consequence, in 1997 Bulgaria was in non-compliance with its control obligations under
Articles 2A through 2E of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To note with appreciation the work done by Bulgaria in cooperation with the Global Environment Facility
to develop a country programme and establish a phase-out plan that brought Bulgaria into compliance
with the Montreal Protocol by 1 January 1998;
3. To monitor closely the progress of Bulgaria with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances,
particularly towards meeting the specific commitments noted above and in this regard, to request that
Bulgaria submit a complete copy of its country programme when approved, including the specific
benchmarks, to the Implementation Committee, through the Ozone Secretariat, for its consideration at its
next meeting. To the degree that Bulgaria is working towards and meeting the specific time-based
consumption, Bulgaria should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In
this regard, Bulgaria should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through this decision, however, the Parties caution
Bulgaria, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country
is the subject of non-compliance is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing
Decisions on non-compliance: Cameroon
Decision XIII/23: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Cameroon
1. To note that Cameroon ratified the Montreal Protocol on 30 August 1989, the London Amendment on
8 June 1992, and the Copenhagen Amendment on 25 June 1996. The country is classified as a Party
380
operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive
Committee in 1993. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved
$5,640,174 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the
Protocol;
2. Cameroon’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 256.9 ODP tonnes. Cameroon reported
consumption of 362 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 1999. Cameroon responded to the
Ozone Secretariat’s request for data for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. Cameroon
reported consumption of 368.7 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I controlled substances for the
consumption freeze control period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. As a consequence, for the control
period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, Cameroon was in non-compliance with its obligations under
Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
3. To request that Cameroon submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Cameroon may wish to consider including in its
plan actions to establish import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out
schedule, to establish a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and to put in place policy and regulatory
instruments that ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Cameroon with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances.
To the degree that Cameroon is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures,
Cameroon should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard,
Cameroon should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in
in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Cameroon, in
accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to return
to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the
importing Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decision XIV/32: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Cameroon
1. To note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/23 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, Cameroon
was requested to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks
to ensure a prompt return to compliance;
2. To further note that Cameroon’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 257 ODP-tonnes. It
reported consumption of 369 ODP-tonnes in 2000 and 364 ODP-tonnes in 2001, placing Cameroon
clearly in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To note with regret that Cameroon has not fulfilled the requirements of Decision XIII/23 and to request
that it should provide a plan of action to the Secretariat as soon as possible, and in time for it to be
considered by the Implementation Committee at its next meeting in July 2003, in order for the Committee
to monitor its progress towards compliance;
4. To further request the United Nations Environment Programme to submit to the Implementation
Committee a progress report on implementation of its policy and technical assistance project currently
under way in Cameroon, and for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization to submit to
the Implementation Committee confirmation of the completion of its two foam projects, which might
have significantly reduced consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A Group I;
5. To stress to the Government of Cameroon its obligations under the Montreal Protocol to phase out the
consumption of ozone-depleting substances, and the accompanying need for it to establish and maintain
an effective governmental policy and institutional framework for the purposes of implementing and
monitoring the national phase-out strategy;
381
6. To closely monitor the progress of Cameroon with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances.
To the degree that Cameroon is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures,
Cameroon should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard,
Cameroon should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in
in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Cameroon, in
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
Decision XV/32: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Cameroon
1. To note that, in accordance with decision XIV/32 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Cameroon
was requested to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks
to ensure a prompt return to compliance with regard to its consumption of Annex A, group I substances;
2. To note also that Cameroon has reported data for 2002 suggesting that it may now be in compliance with
the freeze on CFC consumption, but that it has still not submitted data for the control period 1 July 2001-
31 December 2002;
3. To urge Cameroon, accordingly, to report data for the control period 1 July 2001–31 December 2002 as a
matter of urgency;
4. To note further that Cameroon’s baseline for Annex A, group II substances is 2.38 ODP-tonnes. It
reported consumption of 9 ODP-tonnes for Annex A, group II substances in 2002. As a consequence, for
2002 Cameroon was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2B of the Montreal Protocol;
5. To note with appreciation Cameroon’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
compliance with the control measures for Annex A, group II substances, and to note also that, under the
plan, Cameroon specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing halon consumption from 9 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:
(i) To 3 ODP-tonnes in 2003;
(iii) To phasing out halon consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol,
(b) To monitoring its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas
introduced in 2003;
(c) To monitoring its existing ban on imports of ODS-using equipment, introduced in 1996;
6. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 5 above should enable Cameroon to return to compliance,
with respect to consumption of halons, by 2005, and to urge Cameroon to work with the relevant
implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting
substances in Annex A, group II;
7. To note also that Cameroon’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E is 18.09 ODP-tonnes. It
consequence, for 2002 Cameroon was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the
Montreal Protocol;
382
8. To request Cameroon to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance with respect to consumption of the controlled
substance in Annex E;
9. To monitor closely the progress of Cameroon with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of halons and methyl bromide. To the degree that Cameroon is working towards and
Party in good standing. In that regard, Cameroon should continue to receive international assistance to
enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that
may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision,
however, the Parties caution Cameroon, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that
MP DECISIONS
in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner the Parties will consider measures
ARTICLE 8
consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of
actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of halons and methyl bromide (that is,
the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing
Decisions on non-compliance: Chile
Decision XVI/22: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Chile
1. To note that Chile has reported annual data for the controlled substances in Annex B, group I (other fully
halogenated CFCs), Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform), and Annex E (methyl bromide) for 2003
which are above its requirements for those substances. As a consequence, for 2003, Chile was in non-
compliance with its obligations under Articles 2C, 2E and 2H of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To request Chile, as a matter of urgency, to submit a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to
ensure a prompt return to compliance. Chile may wish to consider including in its plan of action the
establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule,
and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
3. To monitor closely the progress of Chile with regard to the phase-out of other CFCs, methyl chloroform
and methyl bromide. To the degree that Chile is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as Parties in good standing. In that
regard, Chile should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in
accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in
respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties cautions
Chile, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to return
to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures consistent with item
C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of other CFCs, methyl chloroform and methyl bromide (that is,
the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing
Decision XVII/29: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Chile
1. To note that Chile ratified the Montreal Protocol on 26 March 1990, the London Amendment on 9 April
1992, the Copenhagen Amendment on 14 January 1994, the Montreal Amendment on 17 June 1998 and
the Beijing Amendment on 3 May 2000, and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in June 1992. The Executive
Committee has approved $10,388,451 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in
accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
383
2. To note also that Chile’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform),
is 6.445 ODP-tonnes and its baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) is
212.510 ODP-tonnes. As the Party reported consumption of 6.967 ODP-tonnes of methyl chloroform and
274.302 ODP-tonnes of methyl bromide in 2003 and consumption of 3.605 ODP-tonnes of methyl
chloroform and consumption of 262.776 ODP-tonnes of methyl bromide in 2004, it was in non-
compliance with its obligations under Article 2E of the Montreal Protocol in 2003 and under Article 2H
of the Montreal Protocol in 2003 and 2004;
3. To note with appreciation Chile’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance
with the Protocol’s methyl chloroform and methyl bromide control measures, and to note that under the
plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Chile specifically
commits itself:
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
(a) To maintain methyl chloroform consumption at no more than 4.512 ODP-tonnes from 2005 until
2009, and then to reduce methyl chloroform consumption as follows:
(ii) To zero ODP-tonnes by 1 January 2015, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the
Parties after that date;
(b) To reduce methyl bromide consumption from 262.776 ODP-tonnes in 2004 as follows:
(ii) To zero ODP-tonnes by 1 January 2015, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the
Parties after that date;
(c) To introduce an enhanced ozone-depleting substances licensing and import quota system from the
moment the bill is approved in Parliament and to ensure compliance in the interim period by
adopting regulatory measures that the Government is entitled to apply;
4. To note that Chile has reported data for 2004 that indicate that it has already returned to compliance with
the Protocol’s methyl chloroform control measures, to congratulate Chile on that progress, and to urge the
Party to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the remainder of the plan of action
to achieve total phase-out of methyl chloroform;
5. To note also that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Chile to return to compliance
with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures by 2005, and to urge Chile to work with the
relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action to achieve total phase-out of methyl
bromide;
6. To monitor closely the progress of Chile with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of methyl chloroform and methyl bromide. To the degree that the Party is working towards and
Party in good standing. In that regard, Chile should continue to receive international assistance to enable
it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be
taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non compliance. Through the present decision, however,
the Meeting of the Parties cautions Chile, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures,
that, in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will
consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include
the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl chloroform
and methyl bromide that is the substances that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that
384
Decisions on non-compliance: China
Decision XVII/30: Potential non-compliance in 2004 with consumption of the controlled

substances in Annex B group I (other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons) by China, and
request for a plan of action
1. To note that China ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 14 June 1991 and the
Copenhagen Amendment on 22 April 2003, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article
5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the
MP DECISIONS
Multilateral Fund for Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in March 1993. The Executive Committee
ARTICLE 8
has approved $623,438,283 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance
with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. To note further that China has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex B,
group I (other CFCs), for 2004 of 20.539 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption level of 20.5336 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that, in the
absence of further clarification, China is presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures of
the Protocol;
3. To request China, as a matter of urgency, to submit to the Implementation Committee for consideration at
its next meeting an explanation for its excess consumption, together with a plan of action with time-
specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. China may wish to consider including in its
plan of action the establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out schedule;
4. To monitor closely the progress of China with regard to the phase-out of the controlled substances in
Annex B, group I (other CFCs). To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific
standing. In that regard, China should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its
of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Meeting of the
Parties cautions China, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that
it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures
actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of the controlled substances in Annex
B, group I (other CFCs), that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not
Decisions on non-compliance: Czech Republic
Decision VIII/24: Non-compliance by the Czech Republic with the halon phase-out by 1994
1. To note the Czech Republic’s non-compliance in the year 1994 with the halon phase-out, due to the
indispensable operation of special industrial cooling equipment for the chemical industry;
2. To note further that, if continued halon use was indispensable, the Czech Republic should have applied to
the Parties through the essential-use nomination process for allocation of a specific quantity of halon for
that year;
3. To note, however, that the Czech Republic was in compliance in 1995 with the halon phase-out;
4. That no further action is necessary in view of the Czech Republic’s complete phase-out of halon
consumption according to the data submitted to the Secretariat pursuant to Article 7 of the Montreal
Protocol for 1995.
385
Decision IX/32: Non-compliance by the Czech Republic with the freeze in consumption of
methyl bromide in 1995
1. To note the Czech Republic’s non-compliance in 1995 with the freeze in the consumption of methyl
bromide. According to the information provided by the Czech Republic, in 1995 a total of 11.16 ODP
tonnes of methyl bromide was imported, of which 7.9 ODP tonnes was consumed in 1996, and no methyl
bromide was imported in 1996;
2. To note that, consequently, although the 1995 imports of methyl bromide exceeded the freeze level of 6.0
MP DECISIONS
ODP tonnes for the Czech Republic, the average annual consumption for the two years 1995 and 1996
ARTICLE 8
was below that level;
3. That no action is required on this incident of non-compliance but the Czech Republic should ensure that a
similar case does not occur again.
Decision X/22: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Czech Republic
1. To note that the Czech Republic ratified the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 18 December
1996. The country is classified as a non-Article 5 Party under the Protocol. For 1996, the Czech Republic
reported positive consumption of 49.6 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I, substances that are partially
accounted for under the essential-use exemption by the Parties for laboratory and analytical applications.
However, the Czech Republic claims the remainder of the 1996 CFC consumption was for essential uses
for metered-dose inhalers. But, as the Czech Republic imported ozone-depleting substances in 1996
without obtaining an essential-use authorization from the Parties to the Protocol, the Czech Republic was
in state of technical non-compliance with its control obligations under Articles 2A through 2E of the
Montreal Protocol for 1996. The Czech Republic reported to the Implementation Committee that it has
the utmost interest in reliably meeting its obligations under the Montreal Protocol;
2. To take note of the Czech Republic’s status regarding obligations under Articles 2A through 2E of the
Montreal Protocol for 1996 and ask the Implementation Committee to continue to review annually the
Czech Republic’s status.
Decisions on non-compliance: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Decision XXVI/15: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea
Noting that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer on 24 January 1995, the London and Copenhagen amendments to the Protocol on 17
June 1999, and the Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 13 December 2001, and is classified as a party
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol to enable the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea to achieve compliance with the Protocol,
1. That annual consumption by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of the controlled substances in
Annex C, group I (hydrochlorofluorocarbons), of 90.6 ODP-tonnes for 2013 exceeds the party’s
maximum allowable consumption of 78.0 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year and
that the party was therefore in non-compliance with the consumption control measures under the Protocol
for hydrochlorofluorocarbons;
386
2. That the annual production by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of hydrochlorofluorocarbons
of 31.8 ODP-tonnes in 2013 exceeds the party’s maximum allowable production of 27.6 ODP-tonnes for
those controlled substances for that year and that the party was therefore in non-compliance with the
production control measures under the Protocol for hydrochlorofluorocarbons;
3. To note with appreciation the submission by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of a plan of
action to ensure its return to compliance with the Protocol’s hydrochlorofluorocarbon consumption
control measures in 2015 and production control measures in 2016;
4. To note that under that plan of action, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of
the Protocol, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea specifically commits itself:
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
(a) To reducing its consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons from 90.6 ODP-tonnes in 2013 to no greater
than:
(i) 80.0 ODP-tonnes in 2014;
(ii) 70.16 ODP-tonnes in 2015, 2016 and 2017;
(iii) Levels allowed under the Montreal Protocol in 2018 and subsequent years;
(b) To reducing its production of hydrochlorofluorocarbons from 31.8 ODP-tonnes in 2013 to no greater
than:
(ii) 27.6 ODP-tonnes in 2015;
(iii) 24.84 ODP-tonnes in 2016 and 2017;
(iv) Levels allowed under the Montreal Protocol in 2018 and subsequent years;
(c) To monitoring its system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances;
5. To urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to work with the relevant implementing agencies to
implement its plan of action to phase out consumption and production of hydrochlorofluorocarbons;
6. To closely monitor the progress of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with regard to the
implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons. To the degree that
the party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures it should continue to be
treated in the same manner as a party in good standing. In that regard, the Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in
accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by the Meeting of the Parties
in respect of non-compliance;
7. To caution the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of
measures that may be taken by the Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that, in the event
that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea fails to return to compliance, the parties will consider
possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of
hydrochlochlorofluorocarbons that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting parties
387
Decisions on non-compliance: Democratic Republic of the Congo
Decision XV/33: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Democratic Republic of the
Congo
1. To note that the Democratic Republic of the Congo ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and
Copenhagen Amendments on 30 November 1994. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is classified as
a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol and had its country programme approved
by the Executive Committee in 1999. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
2. To note also that the baseline of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for Annex A, group II substances
is 218.67 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 492 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, group II substances in
2002. As a consequence, for 2002 the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in non-compliance with its
obligations under Article 2B of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To request the Democratic Republic of the Congo to submit to the Implementation Committee as a matter
of urgency, for consideration at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure
a prompt return to compliance. The Democratic Republic of the Congo may wish to consider including in
that plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the
phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS-using equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments
that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. To monitor closely the progress of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with regard to the
implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of halons. To the degree that the Democratic
Republic of the Congo is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should
continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that
in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties will consider measures
actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of halons (that is, the subject of non-
compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-
compliance.
Decision XVIII/21: Non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures of the Montreal Protocol
governing consumption of the controlled substances in Annex B, group II, (carbon
tetrachloride) and Annex B, group III, (methyl chloroform) by the Democratic Republic of the
Congo
1. To note that the Democratic Republic of the Congo ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and
Copenhagen Amendments on 30 November 1994 and the Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 23
March 2005, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in March 1999. The Executive Committee has approved
$2,974,819.30 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10
of the Protocol;
2. To note also that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has reported annual consumption for the
controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 16.500 ODP-tonnes, which
exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 2.288 ODP-tonnes for that controlled
substance for that year, and that the Party is therefore in non-compliance with the carbon tetrachloride
control measures under the Protocol;
388
3. To note further that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has reported annual consumption for the
controlled substance in Annex B, group III, (methyl chloroform) for 2005 of 4.000 ODP-tonnes, which
exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 3.330 ODP-tonnes for that controlled
substance for that year, and that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is therefore in non-compliance
with the methyl chloroform control measures under the Protocol;
4. To note with appreciation the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s submission of a plan of action to
ensure its prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform
control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial
mechanism of the Protocol, the Party specifically commits itself:
(a) To maintain carbon tetrachloride consumption in 2006 at no more than 16.500 ODP-tonnes and then
MP DECISIONS
to reduce it as follows:
ARTICLE 8
(ii) To zero in 2008;
(b) To maintain methyl chloroform consumption in 2006 at no more than 4.000 ODP-tonnes and then to
reduce it as follows:
(ii) To zero in 2008;
(c) To monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances, which
includes import quotas;
5. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 4 above should enable the Democratic Republic of the
Congo to return to compliance with the Protocol in 2007 and to urge the Party to work with the relevant
implementing agencies to implement the plan of action to phase out consumption of carbon tetrachloride
and methyl chloroform;
6. To monitor closely the progress of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with regard to the phase-out of
carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting
the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in
good standing. In that regard, the Party should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to
meet its commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
of the Parties cautions the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in accordance with item B of the indicative
list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of
of carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that
Decisions on non-compliance: Dominica
[Also see Decision XV/21, under ‘Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties’]
governing consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I, (CFCs) by Dominica
1. To note that Dominica ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 31 March 1993 and
the Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 7 March 2006, is classified as a Party operating
Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in November 1998.
389
The Executive Committee has approved $232,320 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Dominica’s
2. To note further that Dominica has reported annual consumption for the Annex A, group I, controlled
substances (CFCs) for 2005 of 1.388 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption level of 0.740 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that Dominica
is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for CFCs under the Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Dominica’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s CFC control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice
to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Dominica specifically commits itself:
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
(a) To reduce CFC consumption from 1.388 ODP-tonnes in 2005 as follows:
(ii) To zero ODP-tonnes from 2007, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties
after 1 January 2010;
(b) To introduce by 31 December 2006 a system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting
substances that includes import quotas for all ozone-depleting substances listed under the Protocol.
With regard to CFCs, Dominica would set annual quotas consistent with the levels stated in
paragraph 3 (a) of the present decision, except to meet the needs of any national disasters and
resulting emergencies, in which case Dominica will ensure that the annual quotas do not exceed its
maximum allowable levels of consumption as prescribed by Article 2A of the Protocol or such
levels as may be otherwise authorized by the Parties;
(c) To monitor its ban on the import of equipment requiring the supply of ozone-depleting substances,
noting that the ban excludes equipment for medical purposes;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Dominica to return to compliance in
2006 and to urge Dominica to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of
action to phase out consumption of CFCs;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Dominica with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
regard, Dominica should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those
Dominica, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to
remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of
ensuring that the supply of CFCs that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting
Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Ecuador
Decision XVII/31: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ecuador
1. To note that Ecuador ratified the Montreal Protocol on 10 April 1990 and the London Amendment on 30
April 1990, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in February 1992. The Executive Committee has approved
$5,493,045 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of
the Protocol;
390
2. To note also that Ecuador’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl
chloroform), is 1.997 ODP-tonnes. As the Party reported consumption of 3.484 ODP-tonnes of methyl
chloroform in 2003, it was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2E of the Montreal
Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Ecuador’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s methyl chloroform control measures and to note that, under the plan,
without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Ecuador specifically
commits itself:
(a) To reduce methyl chloroform consumption from 2.50 ODP-tonnes in 2004 to 1.3979 ODP-tonnes in
2005;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
(b) To monitor its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances,
which includes import quotas;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Ecuador to return to compliance in
2005 and to urge Ecuador to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of
action to phase out consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform);
5. To monitor closely the progress of Ecuador with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of methyl chloroform. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific
standing. In that regard, Ecuador should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
caution Ecuador, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it
fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative
list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as
ensuring that the supply of methyl chloroform that is, the substance that is the subject of non-compliance
is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
governing consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) by Ecuador
1. To note that Ecuador ratified the Montreal Protocol on 10 April 1990, the London Amendment on 30
April 1990 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 24 November 1993, is classified as a Party operating
Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in February 1992.
The Executive Committee has approved $5,737,500 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Ecuador’s
2. To note further that Ecuador has reported annual consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E
consumption level of 52.892 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that Ecuador is
therefore in non-compliance with the methyl bromide control measures under the Protocol;
3. To request Ecuador, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March 2007, to submit to the Secretariat,
for consideration by the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the
Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt
return to compliance. Ecuador may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of
policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phaseout;
4. To monitor closely the progress of Ecuador with regard to the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the
degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should
continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Ecuador should
continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in accordance with item
391
A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-
compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties cautions Ecuador, in
accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to return to
compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C
of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide that is the subject of non-compliance is
Decision XX/16: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ecuador

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
Noting that Ecuador ratified the Montreal Protocol on 30 April 1990, the London Amendment on 23 February
1993, the Copenhagen Amendment on 24 November 1993 and the Montreal Amendment on 16 February 2007,
is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme
approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
in February 1992,
Ecuador’s compliance with the Protocol in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol,
Noting further that Ecuador has reported annual consumption of the controlled substances in Annex E (methyl
bromide) for 2007 of 122.4 ODP tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption of 53.0
ODP tonnes for the controlled substance for that year, and that Ecuador is therefore in non-compliance with the
control measures for methyl bromide under the Protocol for methyl bromide in 2007,
1. To record with appreciation Ecuador’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures under which, without prejudice to the
operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Ecuador specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing methyl bromide consumption to no greater than:
(i) 52.8 ODP tonnes in 2008 and in each subsequent calendar year until 2014;
(ii) Zero ODP tonnes in 2015, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
(b) To monitoring its import and export licensing system for ozone-depleting substances;
2. To urge Ecuador to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to
phase out consumption of methyl bromide;
3. To monitor closely the progress of Ecuador with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that the Party is working toward and meeting the specific
standing. In that regard, Ecuador should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance;
4. To caution Ecuador in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance that, in the event that it fails to remain in compliance,
of the methyl bromide that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not
392
Decisions on non-compliance: Eritrea
Decision XVIII/24: Potential non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures of the Montreal
Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I, (CFCs) by
Eritrea and request for a plan of action
1.To note that Eritrea ratified the Montreal Protocol on 10 March 2005 and the London, Copenhagen, Montreal
and Beijing Amendments on 5 July 2005 and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Protocol. The Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of
MP DECISIONS
the Montreal Protocol has approved $106,700 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s
ARTICLE 8
2. To note that Eritrea has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I,
(CFCs) for 2005 of 30.220 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption
level of 20.574 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that in the absence of
further clarification Eritrea is therefore presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures
under the Protocol;
3. To request Eritrea to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March 2007,
Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, an explanation for its excess consumption, together with a plan of
action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Eritrea may wish to
consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out
schedule, a ban on imports of ozone-depleting-substance-using equipment and policy and regulatory
4. To monitor closely the progress of Eritrea with regard to the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that the
Party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be
treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Eritrea should continue to receive
international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative
list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the
present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties cautions Eritrea, in accordance with item B of the
indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the
Meeting of the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.
supply of CFCs that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not
Decisions on non-compliance: Estonia
Decision X/23: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Estonia
1. To note that Estonia acceded to the Montreal Protocol on 17 October 1996. Estonia is classified as a non-
consequence, in 1996, Estonia was in non-compliance with its control obligations under Articles 2A
through 2E of the Montreal Protocol. Estonia also expresses a belief that this situation will continue
Parties until such time as Estonia comes into compliance;
2. To note with appreciation Estonia’s significant strides in coming into compliance with the Montreal
Protocol. Estonia decreased its consumption steadily from an estimated 131 ODP tonnes in 1995 to 36.5
tonnes in 1996. This significant reduction is a clear demonstration of Estonia’s determination to achieve a
complete phase-out according to its schedule. In response to a request from the Ozone Secretariat, Estonia
393
submitted interim reductions targets for the phase-out. In this phase-out plan with interim benchmarks,
Estonia commits:
– To reduce consumption by 1 January 1999 to no more than 23 ODP tonnes for Annex A and B
substances;
– To completely phase out consumption of Annex B substances by 1 January 2000;
– To reduce consumption by 1 January 2000 to no more than 14 ODP tonnes of Annex A substances;
– To reduce consumption of CFC-12 to all but 1 tonne in 2001;

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
– To a complete phase out of Annex A substances by 1 January 2002; and
– To establish, for 1999, a harmonized system for monitoring and controlling imports of ozone-
3. To urge Estonia, in order to assist it in meeting its commitments, to work with relevant Implementing
Agencies to shift current consumption to non-ozone-depleting alternatives, and to quickly develop a
system for managing recovered refrigerants and halon for any continuing critical uses. The Parties note
that these actions are made all the more urgent due to the expected closure of CFC and halon-2402
production capacity in its major source (Russian Federation) by the year 2000, and the very limited
international availability of halon-2402 from other sources.
4. To closely monitor the progress of Estonia with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances,
that Estonia submit a complete copy of its country programme, and subsequent updates, if any, to the
Ozone Secretariat. The Parties urge Estonia to ratify the London and Copenhagen Amendments. To the
degree that Estonia is working towards and meeting the specific time-based commitments noted above
and continues to report data annually demonstrating a decrease in imports and consumption, Estonia
should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Estonia
should, to the degree consistent with relevant assistance requirements, receive international assistance to
enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that
might be taken by a meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision
the Parties caution Estonia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event
that the country fails to meet the commitments noted above in the times specified, the Parties shall
consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures could
include the possibility of actions that may be available under Article 4, designed to ensure that the supply
of CFCs and halons that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased, and that exporting Parties are not
Decisions on non-compliance: Ethiopia
Decision XIII/24: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ethiopia
1. To note that Ethiopia ratified the Montreal Protocol on 11 October 1994 and has not ratified the London
and Copenhagen Amendments. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the
of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $330,844 from the Multilateral Fund
2. Ethiopia’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 33.8 ODP tonnes. Ethiopia reported consumption
of 39 and 39 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 1999 and 2000 respectively. Ethiopia
responded to the Ozone Secretariat’s request for data for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000.
Ethiopia reported consumption of 39.2 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption
freeze control period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. As a consequence, for the control period
394
1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, Ethiopia was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the
Montreal Protocol;
3. To request that Ethiopia submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Ethiopia may wish to consider including in its plan
4. To closely monitor the progress of Ethiopia with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances.
To the degree that Ethiopia is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures,
Ethiopia should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard,
MP DECISIONS
Ethiopia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in
ARTICLE 8
in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Ethiopia, in accordance
with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to return to
indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under
that importing Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decision XIV/34: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ethiopia
1. To note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/24 of the 13th Meeting of the Parties, Ethiopia was
2. Ethiopia’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 34 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 39

ODP-tonnes in 2000 and 35 ODP-tonnes for the control period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, placing
Ethiopia clearly in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To express concern about Ethiopia’s non-compliance but to note that it has submitted a plan of action
with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. It is with that understanding that
the Parties note, after reviewing the plan of action submitted by Ethiopia, that Ethiopia specifically
commits itself to reduce CFC consumption from the current level of 35 ODP tonnes in 2001 as follows:
(a) To 34 ODP tonnes in 2003;
(b) To 17 ODP tonnes in 2005;
(c) To 5 ODP tonnes in 2007; and
(d) To phase out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010 as required under the Montreal Protocol save for
essential uses that might be authorized by the Parties;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Ethiopia to return to compliance by
2003. In this regard, the Parties urge Ethiopia to work with relevant implementing agencies to phase out
5. To closely monitor the progress of Ethiopia with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances.
To the degree that Ethiopia is working towards and meeting the specific commitments noted above in
paragraph 3, Ethiopia should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In
this regard, Ethiopia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these
Ethiopia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to
return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of
395
the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under
Decisions on non-compliance: European Union
Decision XXIII/26: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the European Union
Noting that the European Union reported the export of 16.616 metric tonnes of Annex C, group I, controlled
MP DECISIONS
substances (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) in 2009 to a State classified as not operating under paragraph 1 of Article
ARTICLE 8
5 of the Montreal Protocol that was also a State not party to the Copenhagen Amendment to the Protocol in that
year, which places the party in non-compliance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Protocol prohibiting trade
with any State not party to the Protocol,
1. That no further action is necessary in view of the party’s implementation of regulatory and administrative
measures to ensure its compliance with the provisions of the Protocol governing trade with non-parties;
Montreal Protocol.
Decisions on non-compliance: Federated States of Micronesia
Decision XVII/32: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Federated States of

Micronesia
1. To note that Federated States of Micronesia ratified the Montreal Protocol on 6 September 1995 and the
London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments on 27 November 2001, is classified as a Party
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the
Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in March
2002. The Executive Committee has approved $74,680 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s
2. To note further that the Federated States of Micronesia has reported annual consumption of the controlled
substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), for 2002, 2003 and 2004 of 1.876, 1.691 and 1.451 ODP-tonnes
respectively, which exceed the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 1.219 ODP-tonnes for
those controlled substances in each of those years, and that Federated States of Micronesia is therefore in
non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Federated States of Micronesia’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a
prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s CFC control measures and to note that, under the plan,
without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Federated States of
Micronesia specifically commits itself:
(a) To reduce consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), from 1.451 ODP-
tonnes in 2004 as follows:
(ii) To phase out consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), by 1
January 2006, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
(b) To introduce a system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, including a
quota system, by 1 January 2006;
396
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Federated States of Micronesia to
return to compliance in 2006, and to urge Federated States of Micronesia to work with the relevant
implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of the controlled
substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs);
5. To monitor closely the progress of Federated States of Micronesia with regard to the implementation of
its plan of action and the phase-out of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs). To the
continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Federated States of
Micronesia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in
respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Federated States
MP DECISIONS
of Micronesia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails
ARTICLE 8
to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of
ensuring that the supply of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), that are the subject of
non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-
compliance.
Decision XXI/19: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Federated States of Micronesia
1. That the Federated States of Micronesia reported annual consumption of the controlled substances in
Annex A, group I (chlorofluorocarbons), of 0.5 ODP-tonnes for 2007, which exceeds the Party’s
maximum allowable consumption of 0.2 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and
that the Party is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for those substances under the
Protocol for that year;
2. To note, however, that in response to the request for an explanation for its excess consumption, the
Federated States of Micronesia has reported that it had begun to enforce its licensing system, which took
effect in November 2007;
3. To note further the Federated States of Micronesia’s return to compliance in 2008 and its commitment to
ban imports of chlorofluorocarbons from 2009 onward;
4. To monitor closely the progress of the Party with regard to its implementation of its obligations under the
Protocol.
Decisions on non-compliance: Fiji
Decision XVI/23: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Fiji
1. To note that Fiji has reported annual data for the controlled substances in Annex E (methyl bromide) for
2003 that is above its requirement for that substance. As a consequence, for 2003, Fiji was in non-
compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To request Fiji, as a matter of urgency, to submit a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure
a prompt return to compliance. Fiji may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment
of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, and policy and
regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
3. To monitor closely the progress of Fiji with regard to the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that
Fiji is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be
treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Fiji should continue to receive
397
present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties cautions Fiji, in accordance with item B of the
supply of methyl bromide (that is, the subject of non–compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are
not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decision XVII/33: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Fiji

MP DECISIONS
1. To note that Fiji ratified the Montreal Protocol on 23 October 1989, the London Amendment on 9
ARTICLE 8
December 1994 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 17 May 2000, is classified as a Party operating
Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in June 1993. The
Executive Committee has approved $542,908 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s
2. To note also that Fiji’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) is 0.6710
ODP-tonnes. As the Party reported consumption of methyl bromide of 1.506 ODP-tonnes in 2003 and
1.609 ODP-tonnes in 2004, it was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the
Montreal Protocol in those years;
3. To note with appreciation Fiji’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance
with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice
to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Fiji specifically commits itself:
(a) To reduce methyl bromide consumption from 1.609 ODP-tonnes in 2004 as follows:
(b) To monitor its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances;
(c) To commence implementation of a methyl bromide import quota system in 2006;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Fiji to return to compliance in 2008,
and to urge Fiji to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and
phase out consumption of methyl bromide;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Fiji with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific
standing. In that regard, Fiji should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those
Fiji, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to remain in
compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.
supply of methyl bromide that is the substance that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that
398
Decisions on non-compliance: France
Decision XXV/11: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by France
Noting that France ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer on 28 December
1988, the London Amendment on 12 February 1992, the Copenhagen Amendment on 3 January 1996 and the
Montreal and Beijing amendments on 25 July 2003, and is classified as a party not operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 of the Protocol,
MP DECISIONS
Noting also that France has reported annual production for the controlled substances in Annex C, group I
ARTICLE 8
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons), for 2011 of 598.9 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the party’s maximum allowable
production of 584.4 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and was therefore in
non-compliance with the production control measures under the Protocol for hydrochlorofluorocarbons,
Noting further the submission by France of an action plan that confirms compliance with the Protocol’s
hydrochlorofluorocarbon production control measures for 2012 and subsequent years,
measures to ensure its compliance with the provisions of the Protocol governing production of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons for subsequent years;
2. To monitor closely France’s progress with regard to the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons. To the
degree that the party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should
continue to be treated in the same manner as a party in good standing;
3. To caution France, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it
fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures
consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures, which may include the possibility of actions
available under Article 4.
Decisions on non-compliance: Greece
Decision XVIII/25: Non-compliance with regard to the transfer of CFC production rights by
Greece
1. To note that Greece ratified the Montreal Protocol on 29 December 1988, the London Amendment on 11
May 1993, the Copenhagen Amendment on 30 January 1995, the Montreal Amendment on 27 January
2006 and the Beijing Amendment on 27 January 2006 and is classified as a Party not operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;
2. To note further that Greece has reported annual production for the Annex A, group I, controlled
substances (CFCs) of 2,793.000 ODP-tonnes to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under
Article 5 of the Protocol, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable production level for those
controlled substances of 1,168 ODP-tonnes;
3. To note with appreciation the explanation submitted by the Party that it received a transfer of CFC
production rights from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of 1,786 ODP-tonnes
in 2004 such that its maximum allowable level of CFC production in that year increased to 2,954 ODP-
tonnes, an amount greater than the total CFC production reported by Greece for 2004;
4. To note with concern, however, that Greece did not notify the Secretariat prior to the date of the transfer
and that it is therefore in non-compliance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Protocol that prescribe
the procedure for the transfer of production rights, while acknowledging the Party’s regret at its failure to
399
comply with the notification requirement of Article 2 and its undertaking to ensure that any future
transfers are conducted in accordance with that Article.
Decision XIX/21: Non-compliance in 2005 with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol
governing production of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I, (chlorofluorocarbons)
and the requirements of Article 2 of the Protocol with regard to the transfer of CFC production
rights by Greece
Noting that Greece ratified the Montreal Protocol on 29 December 1988, the London Amendment on 11 May
MP DECISIONS
1993, the Copenhagen Amendment on 30 January 1995, the Montreal Amendment on 27 January 2006 and the
ARTICLE 8
Beijing Amendment on 27 January 2006 and is classified as a Party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
of the Protocol,
Noting also that Greece has reported annual production for the Annex A, group I, controlled substances (CFCs)
of 2,142.000 ODP-tonnes for 2005 to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5 of the
Protocol, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable production level for those controlled substances of 730
ODP-tonnes,
Noting with appreciation the explanation submitted by the Party that 1,374 ODP-tonnes of its excess production
of CFCs is attributable to a transfer of CFC production allowances from the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland to Greece in 2005, but noting with concern that Greece did not notify the Secretariat prior
to the date of the transfer in accordance with the requirements of Article 2 of the Protocol,
Noting also the explanation submitted by Greece that the 38 ODP-tonnes of total reported CFC production in
2005 that was not accounted for by the transfer of production allowances reflected the Party’s misunderstanding
as to the calculation of its baseline for the production of CFCs to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties
operating under Article 5 of the Protocol and data reporting errors by the Party for the baseline year 1995,
Noting further the information submitted by Greece in support of its request to revise the data for the year 1995
that is used to calculate the Party’s baseline for the production of CFCs to meet the basic domestic needs of
Parties operating under Article 5 of the Protocol,
Recalling recommendation 39/16 of the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the
Montreal Protocol, which concluded that the information submitted by Greece did not meet the requirements of
decision XV/19 of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties for substantiating requests for the revision of baseline
data, primarily because the Party could not verify the accuracy of the proposed new baseline data as required by
paragraph 2 (a) (iii) of decision XV/19,
Noting with appreciation, however, that Greece ceased CFC production in January 2006, will not issue licenses
to produce CFCs in the future and reported ozone-depleting substances data for 2006 that confirms its return to
compliance with the Protocol’s CFC production control measures in that year,
1. That Greece was in non-compliance in 2005 with the provisions of Article 2 of the Protocol that prescribe
the procedure for the transfer of production rights, while acknowledging the Party’s regret at its failure to
comply with the notification requirement of Article 2 and its undertaking to ensure that any future
transfers are conducted in accordance with that Article;
2. That Greece was also in non-compliance in 2005 with the production control measures under the
Montreal Protocol for the controlled substances contained in Annex A, group I, (CFCs) of the Protocol;
3. To monitor whether the Party continues to refrain from producing CFCs. To the degree that the Party is
working toward and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the
same manner as a Party in good standing;
4. To caution Greece in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
400
measures may include the possibility of action available under Article 4 of the Protocol.
Decisions on non-compliance: Guatemala
[Also see Decision XIV/17, under ‘Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties’]
Decision XV/34: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Guatemala
MP DECISIONS
1. To note that Guatemala ratified the Montreal Protocol on 7 November 1989 and the London,
ARTICLE 8
Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 21 January 2002. Guatemala is classified as a Party
operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the
Executive Committee in 1993. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has
approved $6,302,694 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of
the Protocol;
2. To note also that Guatemala’s baseline for Annex A, group I substances is 224.6 ODP-tonnes. It reported
consumption of 239.6 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, group I substances in 2002. Guatemala’s baseline for the
controlled substance in Annex E is 400.7 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 709.4 ODP-tonnes of
the controlled substance in Annex E in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002 Guatemala was in non-
compliance with its obligations under Articles 2A and 2H of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Guatemala’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
compliance with the control measures for Annex A, group I and Annex E substances, and to note further
that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal
Protocol, Guatemala specifically commits itself:
(iii) To 85 ODP-tonnes in 2005;
(vi) To phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol,
(b) To reducing methyl bromide consumption from 709.4 ODP-tonnes in 2002, as follows:
(vi) To 286 ODP-tonnes in 2008;
401
(vii) To phasing out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2015, as required under the
Montreal Protocol, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
(c) To establishing, by 2004, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas;
(d) To banning, by 2005, imports of ODS-using equipment;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Guatemala to return to compliance
by 2005 (CFCs) and 2007 (methyl bromide), and to urge Guatemala to work with the relevant
implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting
substances in Annex A, group I and Annex E;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
5. To monitor closely the progress of Guatemala with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of CFCs and methyl bromide. To the degree that Guatemala is working towards and
Party in good standing. In that regard, Guatemala should continue to receive international assistance to
however, the Parties caution Guatemala, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that
in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner the Parties will consider measures
actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs and methyl bromide (that is,
the subjects of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing
Decision XVIII/26: Revised plan of action to return Guatemala to compliance with the control
1. To note that Guatemala ratified the Montreal Protocol on 7 November 1989 and the London,
Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 21 January 2002. Guatemala is classified as a Party
Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1993.
Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $6,366,065 from the
Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. To recall decision XV/34, which noted that Guatemala was in non-compliance in 2002 with its
obligations under Article 2H of the Protocol to freeze its consumption of the controlled substance in
Annex E (methyl bromide) at its baseline level of 400.7 ODP-tonnes but also noted with appreciation the
plan of action submitted by Guatemala to ensure its prompt return to compliance in 2007 with the
Protocol’s methyl bromide consumption control measures;
3. To note with concern, however, that Guatemala has reported consumption of methyl bromide for 2005 of
522.792 ODP-tonnes, which is inconsistent with the Party’s commitment contained in decision XV/34 to
reduce its methyl bromide consumption to 360 ODP-tonnes in 2005;
4. To note further the advice of Guatemala that all relevant stakeholders have committed to phase out
methyl bromide in accordance with the revised time-specific consumption reduction benchmarks
contained in paragraph 5 of the present decision, which provide the Party with one additional year to
overcome the technical, economic and political challenges that were the cause of the Party’s deviation
from its commitments contained in decision XV/34;
5. To note also with appreciation that Guatemala has submitted a revised plan of action for methyl bromide
phase-out in controlled uses and to note, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of
the Protocol, that under the revised plan Guatemala specifically commits itself:
402
(iv) To phase out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2015, as required under the Protocol,
save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
(b) To monitor its system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, including
quotas;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
6. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 5 above should enable Guatemala to return to compliance
with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures in 2008 and to urge Guatemala to work with the
relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of methyl
bromide;
the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that Guatemala is working towards and meeting the
standing. In that regard, Guatemala should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
caution Guatemala, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it
fails to return to compliance in a timely manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide that is the subject of non-compliance is
ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decision XXVI/16: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Guatemala
Noting that Guatemala ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer on 7
November 1989 and the London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Protocol on 21 January
2002, and is classified as a party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol to enable Guatemala to
achieve compliance with the Protocol,
1. That Guatemala’s annual consumption of the controlled substances in Annex C, group I

(hydrochlorofluorocarbons), of 11.3 ODP-tonnes for 2013 exceeds the party’s maximum allowable
consumption of 8.3 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year and that the party was
therefore in non-compliance with the consumption control measures under the Protocol for
2. To note with appreciation the submission by Guatemala of a plan of action to ensure its return to
compliance with the Protocol’s hydrochlorofluorocarbon control measures and its decision to reduce its
hydrochlorofluorocarbon consumption in 2014 below its allowable consumption by the excess amount
consumed in 2013;
3. To note that under that plan of action, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of
the Protocol, Guatemala specifically commits itself:
than:
403
(ii) Levels allowed under the Montreal Protocol in 2015 and subsequent years;
(b) To monitoring its system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances;
4. To urge Guatemala to continue to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of
action to phase out consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons;
the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons. To the degree that the party is working towards and meeting
MP DECISIONS
the specific Protocol control measures it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a party in
ARTICLE 8
good standing. In that regard, Guatemala should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to
by the Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance;
6. To caution Guatemala, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by
the Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that, in the event that Guatemala fails to return to
compliance, the parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.
supply of hydrochlorofluorocarbons that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting
parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Guinea-Bissau
Decision XVI/24: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Guinea-Bissau
1. To note that Guinea-Bissau ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London, Copenhagen and Beijing
amendments on 12 November 2002. Guinea-Bissau is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 2004.
The Executive Committee has approved $669,593 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in
2. To note also that Guinea-Bissau’s baseline for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), is
26.275 ODP tonnes. It reported consumption of 29.446 ODP tonnes of CFCs in 2003. As a consequence,
for 2003, Guinea-Bissau was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal
Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Guinea-Bissau’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
compliance with the control measures for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), and to
note further that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the
Montreal Protocol, Guinea-Bissau specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing CFC consumption from 29.446 ODP tonnes in 2003 as follows:
(ii) To 13.137 ODP tonnes in 2005;
(iv) To 3.941 ODP tonnes in 2007;
(v) To 3.941 ODP tonnes in 2008;
(vi) To 3.941 ODP tonnes in 2009;
404
(vii) To phasing out CFC consumption by 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for
essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
(b) To introduce a system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, including
quotas by the end of 2004;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Guinea-Bissau to return to
compliance by 2004, and to urge Guinea-Bissau to work with the relevant implementing agencies to
implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of CFCs;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Guinea-Bissau with regard to the implementation of its plan of action
and the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that Guinea-Bissau is working towards and meeting the specific
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
standing. In that regard, Guinea-Bissau should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to
by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the
Meeting of the Parties cautions Guinea-Bissau, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of
measures, that, in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Meeting of the Parties will consider
possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is, the
subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing
Decisions on non-compliance: Haiti
Decision XXII/12: Situation of Haiti
Noting with appreciation the efforts and commitment made by the Government of Haiti to sustain compliance
with the Montreal Protocol,
Recognizing the extraordinary difficulties now faced by Haiti as a result of the devastating 7.2 magnitude
earthquake that occurred on 12 January 2010, which has had adverse effects on the economic and social welfare
of the people of Haiti,
Understanding Haiti’s commitment to meeting its obligations in respect of phasing out ozone-depleting
substances under the Montreal Protocol and its amendments,
1. To encourage all parties to assist Haiti by controlling the export of ozone-depleting substances and
technologies dependent on ozone-depleting substances to Haiti through the control of trade in accordance
with decision X/9 and other relevant decisions;
Protocol, when considering project proposals for Haiti, to take into account the special situation of Haiti
and the special difficulties that it may pose in respect of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances,
including in particular the accelerated phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons, in accordance with the
requirements of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To request the implementing agencies to consider providing appropriate assistance to Haiti in the areas of
institutional strengthening, capacity-building, data collection and monitoring and control of trade in
4. Also to request the implementing agencies to consider providing appropriate assistance for the
development of a strategy to achieve the reorganization of Haiti’s national ozone unit and in the
continuation of its efforts to report to the Ozone Secretariat data on consumption of ozone-depleting
substances in accordance with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol;
405
5. That recommendations made by the Implementation Committee under the Non-Compliance Procedure for
the Montreal Protocol are to be considered in the light of the difficulties faced by Haiti as a result of the
earthquake.
Decisions on non-compliance: Honduras
[Also see Decision XIII/16, under ‘Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties’]
Decision XV/35: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Honduras

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
1. To note that Honduras ratified the Montreal Protocol on 14 October 1993 and the London and
Copenhagen Amendments on 24 January 2002. Honduras is classified as a Party operating under
Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive
Committee in 1996. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved
$2,912,410 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the
Protocol;
2. To note also that Honduras’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E is 259.43 ODP-tonnes. It
consequence, for 2002 Honduras was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the
Montreal Protocol;
3. To recognize the devastation and disruption to agriculture caused by Hurricane Mitch in October 1998,
which contributed to the increase in use of methyl bromide, and to applaud Honduras’s efforts to recover
from the situation;
4. To note with appreciation Honduras’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
under the plan, Honduras specifically commits itself:
(b) To monitoring its system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas, in force since
May 2003;
(c) To monitoring its ban on imports of ODS-using equipment, in force since May 2003;
5. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 4 above should enable Honduras to return to compliance by
2005, and to urge Honduras to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of
action and phase out consumption of the ozone-depleting substance in Annex E;
6. To monitor closely the progress of Honduras with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that Honduras is working towards and meeting the
standing. In that regard, Honduras should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
caution Honduras, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it
fails to return to compliance in a timely manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C
406
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is
Decision XVII/34: Revised plan of action to return Honduras to compliance with the control
1. To note that Honduras ratified the Montreal Protocol on 14 October 1993 and the London and
Copenhagen Amendments on 24 January 2002, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the
MP DECISIONS
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1996. Since approval of the country
ARTICLE 8
programme, the Executive Committee has approved $3,342,025 from the Multilateral Fund to enable
2. To recall decision XV/35, which noted that Honduras was in non-compliance in 2002 with its obligations
under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol to freeze its consumption of the controlled substance in Annex
E (methyl bromide) at its baseline level of 259.43 ODP-tonnes, but also noted with appreciation the plan
of action submitted by Honduras to ensure its prompt return to compliance in 2005;
3. To note with concern, however, that while Honduras has reported consumption of methyl bromide for
2004 of 340.80 ODP-tonnes that is less than its reported consumption for 2003, it is still inconsistent with
the Party’s commitment contained in decision XV/35 to reduce its methyl bromide consumption to 306.1
ODP-tonnes in 2004;
4. Further to note the advice of Honduras that its stakeholders remain committed to methyl bromide phase
out and that an additional two years would be required to overcome the technical difficulties that were the
cause of the Party’s deviation from its commitments contained in decision XV/35;
5. To note with appreciation that Honduras has submitted a revised plan of action for methyl bromide phase-
out in controlled uses, and to note, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the
Protocol, that under the revised plan Honduras specifically commits itself:
quotas, in force since May 2003;
(c) To monitor its ban on imports of equipment using ozone-depleting substances, in force since May
2003;
6. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 5 above should enable Honduras to return to compliance
with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures in 2008 and to urge Honduras to work with the
relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of the
controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide);
7. To monitor closely the progress of Honduras with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide). To the degree that Honduras is
the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Honduras should continue to receive
407
international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the
Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Honduras, in accordance with item B of the
Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures
may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of
methyl bromide that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased and that exporting Parties are not
Decisions on non-compliance: Islamic Republic of Iran

MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 8
Decision XVIII/27: Potential non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures of the Montreal
Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B group II, (carbon
tetrachloride) by the Islamic Republic of Iran and request for a plan of action
1. To note that the Islamic Republic of Iran ratified the Montreal Protocol on 3 October 1990, the London
and Copenhagen Amendments on 4 August 1997 and the Montreal Amendment on 17 October 2001, is
classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country
programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol in June 1993. The Executive Committee has approved $59,507,714 from the
Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. To note that the Islamic Republic of Iran has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in
Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 13.640 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s
maximum allowable consumption level of 11.550 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year,
and that in the absence of further clarification the Islamic Republic of Iran is therefore presumed to be in
non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;
3. To request the Islamic Republic of Iran to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later
than 31 March 2007, for consideration by the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance
Procedure of the Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, an explanation for its excess consumption,
together with a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance.
The Islamic Republic of Iran may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of
import quotas to support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ozone-depleting-substance-using
equipment and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. To monitor closely the progress of the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the phase-out of carbon
tetrachloride. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control
measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard,
the Islamic Republic of Iran should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its
Parties cautions the Islamic Republic of Iran, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures,
the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of carbon
tetrachloride that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing
Decision XIX/27: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Islamic Republic of Iran
Noting that the Islamic Republic of Iran ratified the Montreal Protocol on 3 October 1990, the London and
Copenhagen Amendments to the Protocol on 4 August 1997 and the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol on 17
408
October 2001, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country
Montreal Protocol in June 1993,
Noting also that the Executive Committee has approved $65,323,350 from the Multilateral Fund in accordance
with Article 10 of the Protocol to enable the Islamic Republic of Iran’s compliance,
Noting further that decision XVII/13 of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties provides that the Implementation
Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol should defer until 2007 consideration
of compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride control measures by any Article 5 Party that provides
evidence to the Ozone Secretariat with its annual data report that its deviation from the Protocol’s annual
MP DECISIONS
consumption limit was due to the use of carbon tetrachloride for analytical and laboratory processes,
ARTICLE 8
Congratulating the Islamic Republic of Iran on its reported data for carbon tetrachloride consumption in 2006,
which shows that it was in compliance with its obligations under the control measures of the Montreal Protocol
for that substance in that year,
1. That the Islamic Republic of Iran reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex B,
group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 13.6 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum
allowable consumption of 11.6 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, but that the Party’s
excess consumption was for laboratory and analytical uses;
2. To record with appreciation the submission by the Islamic Republic of Iran of a plan of action to ensure
its prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride control measures, under which,
without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, the Islamic Republic of
Iran specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing consumption to no greater than:
(b) To monitoring its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances,
3. To urge the Islamic Republic of Iran to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its
plan of action to phase out consumption of carbon tetrachloride;
4. To monitor closely the progress of the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the implementation of its
plan of action and the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride. To the degree that the Party is working toward
and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as
a Party in good standing. In that regard, the Islamic Republic of Iran should continue to receive
indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance;
5. To caution the Islamic Republic of Iran in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that,
in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of the carbon tetrachloride that is the subject of
non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of
non-compliance.
409
Decisions on non-compliance: Iraq
Decision XX/15: Difficulties faced by Iraq as a new Party
Noting with appreciation Iraq’s joining the international community in its efforts to preserve the ozone layer,
which came into effect with the recent accession of Iraq as a Party to the Vienna Convention, the Montreal
Protocol and all its amendments,
Recognizing the difficulties faced by Iraq by joining the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol and all its
MP DECISIONS
amendments shortly before key phase-out dates,

ARTICLE 8
Recognizing also the security situation and the political, economic and social difficulties faced by Iraq over the
last two decades,
Understanding Iraq’s commitments for phasing out ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol and
its amendments within a limited time frame,
1. To urge all Parties to assist Iraq, as a new Party, in controlling the export of ozone-depleting substances
and ozone-depleting substance-based technologies into Iraq through the control of trade as per the
provisions of the Montreal Protocol and relevant decisions of the Meeting of the Parties and to encourage
Iraq to participate in an informal prior informed consent process as referred to in decision XIX/12;
2. To request the Executive Committee when considering project proposals for Iraq to phase out ozone-
depleting substances to take into account the special situation of this new Party, which may face
difficulties in the phase out of ozone-depleting substances in annexes A and B, and to be flexible in
considering the project proposals, without prejudice to the possible review of the non-compliance
situation of Iraq by the Parties;
3. To request the implementing agencies to provide appropriate assistance to Iraq in developing its country
programme and national phase-out plans and in continuing its efforts to report to the Secretariat, as soon
as possible, data on consumption of ozone-depleting substances in accordance with the Montreal Protocol
requirements;
4. To request the Implementation Committee to report on the compliance situation of Iraq to the Open-
ended Working Group preceding the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties, during which the present
decision will be reconsidered.
Decision XXIII/24: Difficulties faced by Iraq as a new party
Noting with appreciation Iraq’s efforts to comply with the requirements of the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol and all its amendments,
Recognizing the continued difficulties faced by Iraq as the result of its becoming a party to the Vienna
Convention and the Montreal Protocol and all its amendments shortly before key phase-out dates,
Recognizing also the security situation and the political, economic and social difficulties faced by Iraq over the
past two decades,
Acknowledging Iraq’s commitment to phasing out ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol and
its amendments within a limited time frame,
1. To urge all exporting countries to liaise with the Government of Iraq, as feasible, prior to the export of
any ozone-depleting substances to Iraq in order to support the local authorities in controlling the import
of ozone-depleting substances and combating illegal trade;
410
2. To note the need for extra security and attention to logistical difficulties in the implementation of phase-
out projects in Iraq, including resources adequate to enable implementing agency personnel to operate in
the country;
3. To request the implementing agencies to continue to take into account Iraq’s special situation and to
provide it with appropriate assistance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Kazakhstan
Decision XIII/19: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kazakhstan
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
1. To note that Kazakhstan ratified the Montreal Protocol on 26 August 1998 and the London Amendment
on 26 July 2001. The country is classified as a non-Article 5 Party under the Protocol. The data for 1998
through 2000 in Kazakhstan’s country programme that was submitted to the Implementation Committee
indicate positive consumption of Annex A and B substances, none of which was for essential uses
exempted by the Parties. As a consequence, in 1998 through 2000, Kazakhstan is in non-compliance with
its control obligations under Articles 2A through 2E of the Montreal Protocol. Kazakhstan expresses a
belief that this situation will continue through at least the year 2004, necessitating annual review by the
Implementation Committee and the Parties until such time as Kazakhstan comes into compliance;
2. To express great concern about Kazakhstan’s non-compliance and to note that Kazakhstan only very
recently assumed the obligations of the Montreal Protocol, having ratified the Montreal Protocol in 1998
and the London Amendment in 2001. It is with that understanding that the Parties note, after reviewing
the country programme and submissions of Kazakhstan, that Kazakhstan specifically commits itself:
(a) To reduce CFC consumption to 162 ODP tonnes for calendar year 2002, to 54 ODP tonnes for 2003;
and to phase out CFC consumption by 1 January 2004 (save for essential uses authorized by the
Parties);
(b) To establish, by 1 January 2003, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS;
(c) To establish, by 1 January 2003, a ban on imports of ODS-using equipment;
(d) To reduce halon consumption to 5.08 ODP tonnes for the calendar year 2002 and to phase out halon
consumption by 1 January 2003;
(e) To phase out carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform consumption by 1 January 2002;
(f) To reduce methyl bromide consumption to 2.7 ODP tonnes for calendar year 2002, to 0.44 ODP
tonnes for calendar year 2003, and to phase out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2004;
3. That the measures listed in paragraph 2 above should enable Kazakhstan to achieve the near total phase-
out of all Annexes A, B and E controlled substances by 1 January 2004. In this regard, the Parties urge
Kazakhstan to work with relevant implementing agencies to shift current consumption to non-ozone-
depleting alternatives;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Kazakhstan with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting
substances, particularly towards meeting the specific commitments noted above. In this regard, the Parties
request that Kazakhstan should submit a complete copy of its country programme and subsequent
updates, if any, to the Ozone Secretariat. To the degree that Kazakhstan is working towards and meeting
the specific time-based commitments noted above and continues to report data annually demonstrating a
decrease in imports and consumption, Kazakhstan should continue to be treated in the same manner as a
Party in good standing. In this regard, Kazakhstan should continue to receive international assistance to
enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that
might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision,
the Parties caution Kazakhstan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the
event that the country fails to meet the commitments noted above in the times specified, the Parties shall
411
of Annex A and B controlled substances that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased, and that
Decision XVII/35: Potential non-compliance in 2004 with the controlled substances in Annex A,
group I (CFCs) by Kazakhstan, and request for a plan of action
1. To recall decision XIII/19, which noted that Kazakhstan was in non-compliance from 1998 to 2000 with
its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol to maintain total phase-out of its consumption
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), but also noted with appreciation the plan of
action submitted by Kazakhstan to ensure its prompt return to compliance;
2. To note with concern, however, that Kazakhstan reported annual consumption for the controlled
substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), in 2004 of 11.2 ODP-tonnes, which is inconsistent with the
Party’s commitment contained in decision XIII/19 to reduce its consumption of the controlled substances
in Annex A, group I (CFCs), to zero in 2004;
3. To note further with concern that Kazakhstan has not submitted to the Implementation Committee the
requested explanation for this deviation and strongly to urge the Party to submit this information, along
with its ozone-depleting substance data report for 2005, and to report on its commitment, also contained
in decision XIII/19, to implement a ban on the import of equipment using ozone-depleting-substances, as
a matter of urgency, in time for consideration by the Committee at its next meeting;
4. To remind the Party of paragraph 4 of decision XIII/19, which records the agreement of the Thirteenth
Meeting of the Parties to monitor the progress of Kazakhstan with regard to the phase-out of ozone-
depleting substances, particularly towards meeting the specific commitments contained in decision
XIII/19. In this regard, the Parties requested that Kazakhstan should submit a complete copy of its
country programme and subsequent updates, if any, to the Ozone Secretariat. To the degree that
Kazakhstan is working towards and meeting the specific time-based commitments contained in decision
XIII/19 and continues to report data annually demonstrating a decrease in imports and consumption, it
should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Kazakhstan
non-compliance. Through decision XIII/19, however, the Parties cautioned Kazakhstan, in accordance
with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that the country fails to meet the
commitments noted above in the times specified, the Parties should consider measures, consistent with
item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures could include the possibility of actions that may
be available under Article 4 designed to ensure that the supply of controlled substances in Annex A and
Annex B that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased, and that exporting Parties are not contributing
Decision XXV/12: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kazakhstan
Noting that Kazakhstan ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer on 26 August
1998, the London Amendment on 26 July 2001 and the Copenhagen and Montreal amendments on 28 June
2011, and is classified as a party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting also that the Global Environment Facility approved $6, 024,696 to enable Kazakhstan to achieve
compliance with the Protocol,
Noting further that Kazakhstan has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex C,
group I (hydrochlorofluorocarbons), for 2011 of 90.75 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the party’s maximum
412
allowable consumption of 9.9 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and was therefore in
non-compliance with the consumption control measures under the Protocol for hydrochlorofluorocarbons,
Noting that Kazakhstan has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl
bromide), for 2011 of 6.0 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the party’s maximum allowable consumption of zero
ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and was therefore in non-compliance with the
consumption control measures under the Protocol for methyl bromide,
1. To request Kazakhstan to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March
2014, for consideration by the Implementation Committee at its fifty-second meeting, an explanation for
its excess consumption and details of the management systems in place that had failed to prevent that
MP DECISIONS
excess consumption, together with a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure the party’s
ARTICLE 8
prompt return to compliance with its hydrochlorofluorocarbon and methyl bromide obligations under the
Protocol;
2. To monitor closely Kazakhstan’s progress with regard to the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons and
methyl bromide. To the degree that the party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a party in good standing and, in
that regard, should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in
accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by the Meeting of the Parties
in respect of non-compliance;
3. To caution Kazakhstan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that
it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures
available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of hydrochlorofluorocarbons and methyl
bromide that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting parties are not contributing to a
Decision XXVI/13: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kazakhstan
Noting that Kazakhstan ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer on 26 August
1998, the London Amendment to the Protocol on 26 July 2001, the Copenhagen and Montreal
amendments on 28 June 2011 and the Beijing Amendment on 19 September 2014, and is classified as a
party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting also that the Global Environment Facility has previously approved funding in the amount of $6,024,696
to enable Kazakhstan to achieve compliance with control measures of the Protocol other than those
applicable to hydrochlorofluorocarbons and methyl bromide,
Noting with concern that a methyl bromide project submitted to the Global Environment Facility was rejected
and that the Facility’s consideration of a hydrochlorofluorocarbon project proposal was still at an early
stage,
1. That Kazakhstan’s annual consumption of the controlled substances in Annex C, group I

(hydrochlorofluorocarbons), of 90.75 ODP-tonnes for 2011, 21.36 ODP-tonnes for 2012 and 83.32 ODP-
tonnes for 2013 exceeds the party’s maximum allowable consumption of 9.9 ODP-tonnes for those
controlled substances for those years and that the party was therefore in non-compliance with the
consumption control measures under the Protocol for hydrochlorofluorocarbons;
2. That Kazakhstan’s annual consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) of 6.0
ODP-tonnes in 2011 and 19.0 ODP-tonnes in 2013 exceeds the party’s maximum allowable consumption
of zero ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for those years and that the party was therefore in
non-compliance with the consumption control measures under the Protocol for methyl bromide;
413
3. To note with appreciation the submission by Kazakhstan of a plan of action to ensure its return to
compliance with the Protocol’s hydrochlorofluorocarbon and methyl bromide control measures under
which, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Kazakhstan
specifically commits itself:
than:
(i) 40 ODP-tonnes in 2014;

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
(iii) 3.95 ODP-tonnes in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019;
(iv) Zero ODP-tonnes by 1 January 2020, save for consumption restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and
air-conditioning equipment between the period 2020 and 2030 as prescribed in the Protocol;
(b) To reducing its consumption of methyl bromide from 19.0 ODP-tonnes in 2013 to no greater than:
(ii) Zero ODP-tonnes by 1 January 2015, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the parties;
(c) To monitoring its system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances;
4. To invite the relevant implementing agencies to work with Kazakhstan to secure the reconsideration of
the party’s proposed methyl bromide project and consideration of the party’s proposed
hydrochlorofluorocarbon project by the Global Environment Facility;
5. To urge Kazakhstan to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to
phase out consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons and methyl bromide;
6. To monitor closely the progress of Kazakhstan with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons and methyl bromide. To the degree that the party is working
towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures it should continue to be treated in the same
manner as a party in good standing. In that regard, Kazakhstan should continue to receive international
measures that may be taken by the Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance;
7. To caution Kazakhstan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by
the Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that, in the event that Kazakhstan fails to return
to compliance, the parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.
supply of hydrochlochlorofluorocarbons and methyl bromide that are the subject of non-compliance is
ceased so that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Kenya
Decision XVIII/28: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kenya
1. To note that Kenya ratified the Montreal Protocol on 9 November 1988, the London and Copenhagen
Amendments on 27 September 1994 and the Montreal Amendment on 12 July 2000, is classified as a
Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved
by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in
414
July 1994. The Executive Committee has approved $4,579,057 from the Multilateral Fund to enable
Kenya’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. To note also that Kenya has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A,
group I, (CFCs) for 2005 of 162.210 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption level of 119.728 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that Kenya is
therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for CFCs under the Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Kenya’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance
with the Protocol’s CFC control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the
operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Kenya specifically commits itself:
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
(a) To reduce CFC consumption from 162.210 ODP-tonnes in 2005 to 60.00 ODP-tonnes in 2006;
(b) To further reduce CFC consumption from 60.00 ODP-tonnes in 2006 to 30.00 ODP-tonnes in 2007;
(c) To further reduce CFC consumption from 30.00 ODP-tonnes in 2007 to 10.00 ODP-tonnes in 2008;
(d) To further reduce CFC consumption from 10.00 ODP-tonnes in 2008 to zero (0.00) ODP-tonnes in
2009, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties after 1 January 2010;
(e) To monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances, which
4. To urge Kenya to gazette the ozone-depleting substances regulations required to establish and implement
its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances, which includes import
quotas, as soon as possible and preferably no later than 31 December 2006;
5. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Kenya to return to compliance with
the Protocol in 2006 and to urge Kenya to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement
the plan of action to phase out consumption of CFCs;
6. To monitor closely the progress of Kenya with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
regard, Kenya should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments
in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties
in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Kenya, in
accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to remain in
compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.
supply of CFCs that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not
Decisions on non-compliance: Kyrgyzstan
Decision XVII/36: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kyrgyzstan
1. To note that Kyrgyzstan ratified the Montreal Protocol on 31 May 2000, is classified as a Party operating
Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in July 2002. The
Executive Committee has approved $1,206,732 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s
2. To note further that Kyrgyzstan has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex
A, group II (halons), for 2004 of 2.40 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption level of zero ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that Kyrgyzstan
is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;
415
3. To note with appreciation Kyrgyzstan’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s halon control measures, and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice
to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Kyrgyzstan specifically commits itself:
(a) To maintain consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), at no more
than the 2004 level of 2.40 ODP-tonnes in 2005, and then to reduce halon consumption as follows:
(iii) To phase out consumption of these controlled substances by 1 January 2008, save for essential
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
(b) To monitor its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances;
(c) To introduce a ban on the import of equipment containing halons and equipment that uses halons by
1 January 2006;
(d) To introduce an import quota system to limit annual consumption of the controlled substances in
Annex A, group II (halons), by the beginning of 2006;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Kyrgyzstan to return to compliance
in 2008 and to urge Kyrgyzstan to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan
of action and phase out consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons);
5. To monitor closely the progress of Kyrgyzstan with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of Annex A, group II, controlled substances (halons). To the degree that the Party is
the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Kyrgyzstan should continue to receive
Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Kyrgyzstan, in accordance with item B of the
indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider
possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of Annex A, group II,
controlled substances (halons) that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties
Decisions on non-compliance: Latvia
[Also see Decisions XIV/28 and XV/24, under ‘Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties’]
Decision VIII/22: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Latvia
1. To note that, according to the information provided by Latvia and the statement made by its
representative at the fourteenth meeting of the Implementation Committee, Latvia would be in a situation
of non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol in 1996;
2. To note also that there is a possibility of non-compliance by Latvia in 1997 so that the Implementation
Committee might have to revert to that question that year;
3. To note also that major efforts are being made by Latvia to meet its obligations under the Protocol, even
in the absence of external financial assistance for investment projects;
4. To urge Latvia to ratify the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and provide immediately a
timetable for the ratification process;
416
5. To recommend that international funding agencies should consider favourably the provision of financial
assistance to Latvia for projects to phase out ozone-depleting substances in the country;
6. To keep under review the situation with regard to ODS phase-out in Latvia.
Decision IX/29: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Latvia
1. To note the timetable for the ratification of the London Amendment of the Montreal Protocol provided by
Latvia and urge Latvia to ratify the London Amendment by October 1997 as indicated in their timetable;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
2. To note that, according to the information contained in Latvia’s country programme for the phase-out of
ozone-depleting substances, Latvia is a situation of non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol in 1997
and there is a possibility of non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol in 1998, so that the
Implementation Committee might have to revert to that question that year;
3. To recommend that, in light of the country’s commitment reflected in the country programme, and related
official communications of Latvia to the Parties in line with decision VIII/22, international assistance,
particularly by GEF, should be considered favourably in order to provide funding to Latvia for projects to
implement the country programme for phasing out ozone-depleting substances in the country;
4. To keep under review the situation with regard to ODS phase-out in Latvia.
Decision X/24: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Latvia
1. To note that Latvia acceded to the Montreal Protocol on 28 April 1995 and ratified the London and
Copenhagen Amendments on 2 November 1998. The country is classified as a non-Article 5 Party under
the Protocol and, for 1996, reported to positive consumption of 342 tonnes ODP of Annex A and B
substances, none of which was for essential uses exempted by the Parties. As a consequence, in 1996,
Latvia was in non-compliance with its control obligations under Articles 2A through 2E of the Montreal
Protocol. Latvia also expresses a belief that this situation may continue through at least the year 2000,
necessitating annual review by the Implementation Committee and the Parties until such time as Latvia
comes into compliance.
2. To note with appreciation the fact that Latvia has made tremendous strides in coming into compliance
with the Montreal Protocol. Although Latvia ratified the Protocol just three years ago, it has decreased its
consumption steadily from 1986, when it was 6,558 tonnes, to 1993, when its consumption was 1,205
tonnes, to 1995, when its consumption was 711.5 tonnes to the present level of 342.8 tonnes. This
significant reduction is a clear demonstration of Latvia’s commitment to become a Party in full
compliance with the Protocol. The Parties note with appreciation that Latvia has made efforts to achieve
compliance through agreements with its industry, and through the application of a tax on imports of
ozone-depleting substances. Latvia has also undertaken efforts to understand the disposition of halons
that are currently deployed, and to stockpile halon from decommissioned uses in order to ensure
availability to meet future critical uses. The Parties note these important undertakings, and point out that
similar undertakings could be considered by other countries who are striving to comply with the
provisions of the Protocol. The Parties also note that Latvia’s submission and statements to the
Implementation Committee indicate a commitment:
– To observe the ban on the production and import of Annex A, Group II, substances imposed on 12
December 1997;
– To limit consumption of Annex A, Group I, substances to no more than 100 metric tonnes in 1999;
and
– To ban the production and import of Annex A, Group I, and all Annex B substances by 1 January
2000;
417
3. To note Latvia’s report that a majority of its remaining use of ozone-depleting substances is in the aerosol
sector, a sector with alternatives that are available at a cost savings to users. The Parties further note the
late time at which phase-out projects are being initiated. Accordingly, and considering the plan produced
by Latvia, the Parties are hopeful that Latvia will be able to achieve a total phase-out of Annex A and B
substances by 1 July 2001. Achievement of these commitments and goals will necessitate the strict
application of import quota restrictions on an annual basis to ensure phased reductions in consumption;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Latvia with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances,
particularly towards meeting the specific commitments noted above. In this regard, to request that Latvia
submit a complete copy of its country programme, and subsequent updates, if any, to the Ozone
Secretariat. To the degree that Latvia is working towards and meeting the specific time-based
MP DECISIONS
consumption, Latvia should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this
ARTICLE 8
regard, Latvia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments
in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a meeting of the
Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Latvia, in
accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to meet
the commitments noted above in times specified, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item
C of the indicative list of measure. These measures could include the possibility of actions that may be
available under Article 4, designed to ensure that the supply of CFCs and halons that is the subject of
non-compliance is ceased, and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-
compliance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Lesotho
Decision XVI/25: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Lesotho
1. To note that Lesotho ratified the Montreal Protocol on 25 March 1994. Lesotho is classified as a Party
Executive Committee in 1996. The Executive Committee has approved $311,332 from the Multilateral
Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. To note also that Lesotho’s baseline for the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), is 0.2
ODP tonnes. It reported consumption of 1.8 ODP tonnes of halons in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002,
Lesotho was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2B of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Lesotho’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
compliance with the control measures for the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), and to
note further that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the
Montreal Protocol, Lesotho specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing halon consumption from 1.8 ODP tonnes in 2002 as follows:
(v) To zero ODP tonnes in 2008, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties after
1 January 2010;
(b) To introduce a quota system for the import of halons;
(c) To introduce a ban on the import of halon-based equipment and systems in 2005;
418
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Lesotho to return to compliance by
2006, and to urge Lesotho to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of
action and phase out consumption of halons;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Lesotho with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of halons. To the degree that Lesotho is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
regard, Lesotho should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those
Parties cautions Lesotho, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event
that it fails to remain in compliance, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures consistent with
MP DECISIONS
item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available
ARTICLE 8
under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of halons (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is
Decisions on non-compliance: Libya
Decision XIV/25: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
1. To note that Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ratified the Montreal Protocol on 11 July 1990 and the London
Amendment on 12 July 2001. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the
of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $2,794,053 from the Multilateral Fund
2. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 717 ODP-tonnes. It reported
consumption of 985 ODP-tonnes in 2000 and 985 ODP-tonnes in 2001, placing Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
clearly in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To request that Libyan Arab Jamahiriya submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with
time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya may wish to
consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline
levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory
4. To closely monitor the progress of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with regard to the phase-out of
ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is working towards and meeting
the specific Protocol control measures, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya should continue to be treated in the same
manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya should continue to receive
indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance.
However, through this decision, the Parties caution Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in accordance with item B
Decision XV/36: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
1. To note that, in accordance with decision XIV/25 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya was requested to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-
419
2. To note with appreciation the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s submission of its plan of action, and to note also
that, under the plan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya specifically commits itself:

MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 8
(c) To monitoring its ban on imports of ODS-using equipment, introduced in 2003;
3. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above should enable the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to return
to compliance by 2003, and to urge the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to work with the relevant implementing
Annex A, group I;
4. To monitor closely the progress of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with regard to the implementation of its
plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is working
towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same
manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya should continue to receive
Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in accordance
with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a
timely manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.
supply of CFCs (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not
Decision XVI/26: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
1. To note that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has reported annual data for the controlled substances in Annex
A, group II (halons), for 2003 which is above its requirements for those substances. As a consequence, for
2003, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2B of the
Montreal Protocol;
2. To request the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, as a matter of urgency, to submit a plan of action with time-
specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya may wish to
consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline
levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on the import of ozone-depleting-substances-using
equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
3. To monitor closely the progress of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with regard to the phase-out of halons. To
the degree that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control
the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its
420
Parties cautions the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures,
the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of halons (that is, the
Decision XVII/37: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
1. To note that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ratified the Montreal Protocol on 11 July 1990, the London
Amendment on 12 July 2001 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 24 September 2004, is classified as a
Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved
by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in
December 2000. The Executive Committee has approved $5,198,886 from the Multilateral Fund to
enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. To note further that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s baseline for Annex A, group II, controlled substances
(halons) is 633.067 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption in 2003 and 2004 of 714.500 ODP-tonnes of
those substances. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl
bromide) is 94.050 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption in 2004 of 96.000 ODP-tonnes of that
substance. As a consequence, in 2003 the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was in non-compliance with its
obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol, while in 2004 it was in non-compliance with its
obligations under Articles 2A and 2H of the Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt
return to compliance with the Protocol’s halon and methyl bromide control measures and to note that,
under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya specifically commits itself:
(a) To maintain consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), at no more
than the 2004 level of 714.500 ODP-tonnes in 2005 and then to reduce halon consumption as
follows:
(iii) To phase out halon consumption by 1 January 2008, save for essential uses that may be
(b) To maintain consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) at no more than
the 2004 level of 96.000 ODP-tonnes in 2005 and 2006 and then to reduce methyl bromide
consumption as follows:
(ii) To phase out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2010, save for critical uses that may
be authorized by the Parties;
4. To recall the commitment of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, contained in decision XV/36, to establish a
system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, including quotas, and to monitor
its ban on imports of equipment using ozone-depleting substances, introduced in 2003;
5. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to return
to compliance with the Protocol’s halon and methyl bromide control measures in 2007, and to urge the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action
and phase out consumption of halon and methyl bromide;
421
6. To monitor closely the progress of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with regard to the implementation of its
plan of action and the phase-out of Annex A, group II, controlled substances (halons) and the controlled
substance in Annex E (methyl bromide). To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the
standing. In that regard, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya should continue to receive international assistance to
enable it to meet its commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may
be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision,
however, the Parties caution the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in accordance with item B of the indicative list
of measures, that in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures
actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of Annex A, group II, controlled
substances (halons) and the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) that are the subject of non-
MP DECISIONS
compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-
ARTICLE 8
compliance.
Decision XXIII/23: Potential non-compliance in 2009 with the provisions on consumption of the
controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), by Libya and request for a plan of action
Noting that Libya ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer on 11 July 1990,
the London Amendment on 12 July 2001 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 24 September 2004 and is
classified as a party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting also that the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal
Protocol has approved $7,627,354 from the Multilateral Fund in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol to
enable Libya to achieve compliance with the Protocol,
Noting further that Libya has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group II
(halons), for 2009 of 1.8 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the party’s maximum allowable consumption of zero
ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that in the absence of further clarification, Libya is
therefore presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol,
1. To request Libya to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March 2012, for
consideration by the Implementation Committee at its forty-eighth meeting an explanation for its excess
consumption of halons, together with a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure the party’s
prompt return to compliance;
2. To monitor closely Libya’s progress with regard to the phase-out of halons: to the degree that the party is
the same manner as a party in good standing and, in that regard, Libya should continue to receive
list of measures that may be taken by the Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance;
3. To caution Libya, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it
fails to return to compliance in a timely manner the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures
available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of halons that is the subject of non-compliance
is ceased so that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decision XXVII/11: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Libya
Noting that Libya ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer on 11 July 1990,
the London Amendment on 12 July 2001, the Copenhagen Amendment on 24 September 2004 and the Montreal
Amendment and Beijing Amendment on 15 April 2014 and is classified as a party operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 of the Protocol,
422
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol to enable Libya to
achieve compliance with the Protocol,
1. That the annual consumption reported by Libya of the controlled substances in Annex C, group I
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons), of 144.0 ODP-tonnes for 2013 and 122.4 ODP-tonnes for 2014 exceeds the
party’s maximum allowable consumption of 118.38 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for those
years and that the party was therefore in non-compliance with the consumption control measures under
the Protocol for hydrochlorofluorocarbons,
2. To note with appreciation the submission by Libya of a plan of action to ensure its return to compliance
MP DECISIONS
with the Protocol’s hydrochlorofluorocarbon control measures under which, without prejudice to the
ARTICLE 8
operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Libya specifically commits itself:
than:
(ii) 118.4 ODP-tonnes in 2016 and 2017;
(iii) 106.5 ODP-tonnes in 2018 and 2019;
(iv) 76.95 ODP-tonnes in 2020 and 2021;
(v) Levels allowed under the Montreal Protocol in 2022 and subsequent years;
(b) To monitoring the enforcement of its system for licensing imports and exports of
(c) To imposing a ban on the procurement of air-conditioning equipment containing

hydrochlorofluorocarbons in the near future and to considering a ban on the import of such equipment;
3. To urge Libya to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to phase
out the consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons;
4. To monitor closely the progress of Libya with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons. To the degree that the party is working towards and meeting the
specific Protocol control measures it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a party in good
standing. In that regard, Libya should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by the
5. To caution Libya, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by the
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that, in the event that Libya fails to return to
supply of hydrochlorofluorocarbons that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting
parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
423
Decisions on non-compliance: Lithuania
Decision VIII/23: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Lithuania
1. To note that, according to the information provided by Lithuania and the statement made by its
representative at the fourteenth meeting of the Implementation Committee, Lithuania would be in a
situation of non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol in 1996;
2. To note also that there is a possibility of non-compliance by Lithuania in 1997 so that the Implementation
MP DECISIONS
Committee might have to revert to that question that year;

ARTICLE 8
3. To note also that major efforts are being made by Lithuania to meet its obligations under the Protocol,
even in the absence of external financial assistance for investment projects;
4. To urge Lithuania to ratify the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and provide immediately a
timetable for the ratification process;
5. To recommend that international funding agencies should consider favourably the provision of financial
assistance to Lithuania for projects to phase out ozone-depleting substances in the country;
6. To keep under review the situation with regard to ODS phase-out in Lithuania.
Decision IX/30: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Lithuania
1. To note the timetable for the ratification of the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol provided by
Lithuania and urge Lithuania to ratify the London Amendment in September 1997 as indicated in their
timetable;
2. To note that, according to the information contained in Lithuania’s country programme for the phase-out
of ozone-depleting substances, Lithuania is in a situation of non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol
in 1997 and there is a possibility of non-compliance in 1998, so that the Implementation Committee
might have to revert to that question that year;
3. To recommend that, in light of the country’s commitment reflected in the country programme, and related
official communications of Lithuania to the Parties in line with decision VIII/23, international assistance,
particularly by GEF, should be considered favourably in order to provide funding to Lithuania for
projects to implement the country programme for phasing out ozone-depleting substances in the country;
4. To keep under review the situation with regard to ODS phase-out in Lithuania.
Decision X/25: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Lithuania
1. To note that Lithuania acceded to the Montreal Protocol on 18 January 1995, and acceded to the London
and Copenhagen Amendments on 3 February 1998. The country is classified as a non-Article 5 Party
under the Protocol and, for 1996, reported positive consumption of 295 ODP tonnes ODP of Annex A
and B substances, none of which was for essential uses exempted by the Parties. As a consequence, in
1996, Lithuania was in non-compliance with its control obligations under Articles 2A through 2E of the
Montreal Protocol. Lithuania also expresses a belief that this situation may continue through at least the
year 2000, necessitating annual review by the Implementation Committee and the Parties until such time
as Lithuania comes into compliance;
424
2. To note with appreciation the fact that Lithuania has made tremendous strides in coming into compliance
with the Montreal Protocol. Although Lithuania ratified the Protocol just three years ago, it has decreased
its consumption steadily from 1986, when it was estimated at 6,089 tonnes, to 1993, when its
consumption was estimated at 935 ODP tonnes, to 1995, when its consumption was 428 tonnes, to 1996
when its consumption of Annex A and B substances is reported at 295 tonnes. Lithuania is very clear in
admitting that a substantial reason for the significant reduction in consumption is due to the economic
turmoil that has been taking place in its country. After review of the submissions and presentation to the
Implementation Committee, it is noted that Lithuania commits:
– To ban the import of CFC-113, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform by 1 January 2000; and
– To reduce the consumption of Annex A and B substances by 86 per cent from 1996 levels by 1
MP DECISIONS
January 2000;
ARTICLE 8
3. To note that achievement of these goals will necessitate a strict application of Lithuania’s existing import
licensing system to ensure that phased reductions and reduced reliance on ozone-depleting substances
continue to take place, and indeed, the Lithuania country programme includes a commitment to make
arrangements with its customs department to ensure that imports are ceased. Ensuring that requirement to
cease imports is particularly important given the pending closure of CFC producers in Russian
Federation, supply on which Lithuania has traditionally depended. Noting Lithuania’s obvious
commitment to the Montreal Protocol, it is hopeful that the country will be able to achieve a total phase-
out of Annex A and B substances by 1 January 2001. In so stating, the Parties noted but specifically
rejected a request by Lithuania to allow for continuous imports until 2005 for servicing existing
refrigeration equipment. The Parties, in so doing, note that achieving a phase-out by 1 January 2001 may
necessitate that Lithuania increase the recovery of existing ODS or the import of recycled material, and
urge Lithuania to plan carefully for its future refrigerant-servicing needs and invite the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel to help in this endeavour. The Parties will closely monitor the progress of
Lithuania towards meeting the above-noted commitments to reduce CFC-113, carbon-tetrachloride and
methyl-chloroform use prior to the next Meeting of the Parties, and to put in place by June 1999 a
requirement to cease imports of these substances by 1 January 2000 (save for essential uses authorized by
the Parties);
4. To closely monitor the progress of Lithuania with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances,
that Lithuania submit a complete copy of its country programme, and subsequent updates, if any, to the
Ozone Secretariat. To the degree that Lithuania is working towards and meeting the specific time-based
consumption, Lithuania should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In
this regard, Lithuania should receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in
accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a meeting of the Parties
in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Lithuania, in
accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to meet
the commitments noted above in the times specified, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with
item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures could include the possibility of actions that may
be available under Article 4, designed to ensure that the supply of CFCs and halons that is the subject of
non-compliance is ceased, and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-
compliance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Maldives
Decision XIV/26: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Maldives
1. To note that Maldives ratified the Montreal Protocol on 16 May 1989, the London Amendment on 31
July 1991 and the Copenhagen Amendment and the Montreal Amendment on 27 September 2001. The
country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country
programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1993. Since approval of the country programme, the
Executive Committee has approved $370,516 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in
425
2. Maldives’ baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 5 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 5 ODP-
tonnes in 2000 and 14 ODP-tonnes in 2001, placing Maldives clearly in non-compliance with its
3. To request that Maldives submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Maldives may wish to consider including in this
4. To closely monitor the progress of Maldives with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances.
To the degree that Maldives is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures,
MP DECISIONS
Maldives should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard,
ARTICLE 8
Maldives should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in
in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Maldives, in
Decision XV/37: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Maldives
1. To note that, in accordance with decision XIV/26 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Maldives was
2. To note with appreciation Maldives’ submission of its plan of action, and to note also that, under the plan,
Maldives specifically commits itself:
(i) To 0 ODP-tonnes in 2003, 2004 and 2005;
(iv) To 0 ODP-tonnes in 2008 and 2009;
(b) To monitoring its existing system for licensing imports of ODS, including quotas, introduced in
2002;
3. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above have already enabled Maldives to return to
compliance, to congratulate Maldives on that progress and to urge Maldives to work with the relevant
4. To monitor closely the progress of Maldives with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that Maldives is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
426
regard, Maldives should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those
Maldives, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to
remain in compliance the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of
ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting
Decisions on non-compliance: Mexico
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
governing consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon
tetrachloride) by Mexico
1. To note that Mexico ratified the Montreal Protocol on 31 March 1988, the London Amendment on 11
October 1991 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 16 September 1994, is classified as a Party operating
Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in February 1992.
The Executive Committee has approved $83,209,107 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Mexico’s
2. To note further that Mexico has reported annual consumption for the Annex B, group II, controlled
substance (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 89.540 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum
allowable consumption level of 9.376 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that
Mexico is therefore in non-compliance with the carbon tetrachloride control measures under the Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Mexico’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride control measures and to note that, under the plan,
without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Mexico specifically
commits itself:
(a) To reduce carbon tetrachloride consumption from 89.540 ODP-tonnes in 2005 as follows:
(ii) To zero ODP-tonnes in 2009;
(b) To monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances, which
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Mexico to return to compliance with
the Protocol in 2008 and to urge Mexico to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement
the plan of action to phase out consumption of carbon tetrachloride;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Mexico with regard to the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride. To the
continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Mexico should
A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-
compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties cautions Mexico, in
accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to return to
compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C
427
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of carbon tetrachloride that is the subject of non-compliance is
Decision XXI/20: Non-compliance in 2008 with the provisions of the Protocol governing
consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group II (carbon tetrachloride), by
Mexico
Noting that Mexico ratified the Montreal Protocol on 31 March 1988, the London Amendment on 11 October
1991, the Copenhagen Amendment on 16 September 1994, the Montreal Amendment on 28 July 2006 and the
Beijing Amendment on 12 September 2007, and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
of the Protocol,
Mexico’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol,
1. That Mexico reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex B, group II (carbon
tetrachloride), of 88.0 ODP-tonnes in 2008, an amount inconsistent with its commitment contained in
decision XVIII/30 to reduce carbon tetrachloride consumption to no greater than 9.376 ODP-tonnes in
that year, and that the Party is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for that substance
under the Protocol for that year;
2. To record with appreciation the submission by Mexico of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride consumption control measures under which, without
prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Mexico specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing carbon tetrachloride consumption to no greater than zero ODP-tonnes in 2009 and
thereafter;
3. To urge Mexico to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to phase
out consumption of carbon tetrachloride;
4. To monitor closely the progress of Mexico with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of carbon tetrachloride. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the
standing. In that regard, Mexico should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
5. To caution Mexico, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance
of carbon tetrachloride that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not
428
Decisions on non-compliance: Morocco
Decision XV/23: Potential non-compliance with consumption of the Annex C, group II, ozone-
depleting substance (hydrobromofluorocarbons) by Morocco in 2002, and request for a plan of
action
1. To note that Morocco has reported annual data for Annex C, group II, for 2002 which are above its
MP DECISIONS
requirement for a 100 per cent phase-out. In the absence of further clarification, Morocco is presumed to
ARTICLE 8
be in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;
2. To request Morocco to submit to the Implementation Committee, for consideration at its next meeting, an
explanation for its excess consumption, and a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a
3. To monitor closely the progress of Morocco with regard to the phase-out of hydrobromofluorocarbons.
To the degree that Morocco is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it
should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Morocco
should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in accordance
with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of
non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Morocco, in accordance with
manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.
Decisions on non-compliance: Namibia
Decision XIV/22: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Namibia
1. To note that Namibia ratified the Montreal Protocol on 20 September 1993 and the London Amendment
on 6 November 1997. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol
and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1995. Since approval of the
country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $406,147 from the Multilateral Fund to
enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Namibia’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 22 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 22

and 24 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and 2001 respectively, and consumption of
23 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000
to 30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Namibia was in non-
3. To request that Namibia submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Namibia may wish to consider including in this
4. To closely monitor the progress of Namibia with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances.
To the degree that Namibia is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures,
Namibia should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard,
Namibia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in
in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Namibia, in accordance
with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a
timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of
429
measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as
ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting
Decision XV/38: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Namibia
1. To note that, in accordance with decision XIV/22 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Namibia was
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
2. To note with appreciation Namibia’s submission of its plan of action, and to note also that, under the
plan, Namibia specifically commits itself:
(vii) To 1.0 ODP-tonnes in 2009;
(viii) To phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol,
3. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above have already enabled Namibia to return to
compliance, to congratulate Namibia on that progress and to urge Namibia to work with the relevant
4. To monitor closely the progress of Namibia with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that Namibia is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
regard, Namibia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those
Namibia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to
remain in compliance the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of
430
Decisions on non-compliance: Nepal
Decision XIV/23: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Nepal
1. To note that Nepal ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 6 July 1994. The
country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
2. Nepal’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 27 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 94
ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000, and consumption of 94 ODP-tonnes of Annex A,
Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. As a
consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Nepal was in non-compliance with its
3. To request that Nepal submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Nepal may wish to consider including in this plan
4. To closely monitor the progress of Nepal with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To
the degree that Nepal is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Nepal
should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Nepal should
compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Nepal, in accordance with item B of the
indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the
Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures
may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs
(that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a
Decision XV/39: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Nepal
1. To recall that in its decision XIV/23 the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties noted that Nepal’s baseline for
Annex A, group I substances is 27 ODP-tonnes. Nepal reported consumption of 94 ODP-tonnes of
Annex A, group I substances in 2000 and consumption of 94 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, group I substances
for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July
2000-June 2001 control period Nepal was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the
Montreal Protocol;
2. To note that Nepal has subsequently reported that 74 ODP-tonnes of imports of CFCs have been detained
by its customs authorities as the shipment lacked an import license, and that Nepal therefore wished to
report the quantity as illegal trade under the terms of decision XIV/7;
3. To congratulate Nepal on its actions in seizing the shipment and in reporting the fact to the Secretariat;
4. To note also, however, that paragraph 7 of decision XIV/7 provides that “the illegally traded quantities
should not be counted against a Party’s consumption provided the Party does not place the said quantities
on its own market”;
5. To conclude, therefore, that if Nepal decides to release any of the seized quantity of CFCs into its
domestic market, it would be considered to be in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of
431
the Montreal Protocol and would therefore be required to fulfil the terms of decision XIV/23, including
submitting to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a
6. To request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of Nepal at its next meeting.
Decision XVI/27: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Nepal
1. To note that Nepal ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 6 July 1994. Nepal is
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1998. The Executive Committee has approved
$453,636 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. To recall that in its decision XV/39, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties had congratulated Nepal on
seizing 74 ODP tonnes of imports of CFCs that had been imported in 2000 without an import license, and
on reporting the quantity as illegal trade under the terms of decision XIV/7;
3. To recall that, in paragraph 5 of decision XV/39, the Parties had stated that, if Nepal decided to release
any of the seized quantity of CFCs on to its domestic market, it would be considered to be in non-
compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol and would therefore be
required to fulfil the terms of decision XIV/23, including submitting to the Implementation Committee a
plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance;
4. To clarify the meaning of paragraph 5 of decision XV/39 to mean that Nepal would only be considered to
be in non-compliance if the amount of CFCs released on to the market in any one year exceeded its
permitted consumption level under the Protocol for that year;
5. To note further that Nepal’s baseline for CFCs is 27 ODP tonnes;
6. To note with appreciation Nepal’s submission of its plan of action to manage the release of the seized
CFCs, and to note further that, under the plan, Nepal specifically commits itself:
(a) To release no more than the following amount of CFCs in each year as follows:
(i) 27.0 ODP tonnes in 2004;
(ii) 13.5 ODP tonnes in 2005;
(iii) 13.5 ODP tonnes in 2006;
(iv) 4.05 ODP tonnes in 2007;
(v) 4.05 ODP tonnes in 2008;
(vi) 4.00 ODP tonnes in 2009;
(vii) Zero in 2010, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
(b) To monitor its existing system for licensing imports of ozone-depleting substances, including
quotas, introduced in 2001, which includes a commitment not to issue import licenses for CFCs, in
order to remain in compliance with its plan of action;
(c) To report annually on the quantity of CFCs released pursuant to paragraph 6 (a) above;
(d) To ensure that any quantities of CFCs remaining after 2010 are not released on to its market except
in compliance with Nepal’s obligations under the Montreal Protocol;
432
7. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 6 above will enable Nepal to remain in compliance;
8. To monitor closely the progress of Nepal with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of CFCs.
Decisions on non-compliance: Nigeria
[Also see Decisions XIII/16 and XV/22, under ‘Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties’]
Decision XIV/30: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Nigeria
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
1. To note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/16 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, the
Implementation Committee requested the Secretariat to write to Nigeria since it had reported data on CFC
consumption for either the year 1999 and/or 2000 that was above its baseline, and was therefore in a state
of potential non-compliance;
2. Nigeria’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 3,650 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of
4,095 ODP-tonnes in 2000 and 3,666 ODP-tonnes in 2001, placing Nigeria clearly in non-compliance
with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To express concern about Nigeria’s non-compliance but to note that it has submitted a plan of action with
time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. It is with that understanding that the
Parties note, after reviewing the plan of action submitted by Nigeria, that Nigeria specifically commits
itself:
(a) To reduce Annex A consumption from the current level of 3,666 ODP tonnes in 2001 as follows:
(i) To 3,400 ODP tonnes in 2003;
(ii) To 3,200 ODP tonnes in 2004;
(iii) To 1,800 ODP tonnes in 2005;
(iv) To 1,100 ODP tonnes for 2006;
(v) To 510 ODP tonnes in 2007;
(vi) To 300 ODP tonnes in 2008;
(vii) To 100 ODP tonnes in 2009; and
(viii) To phase out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010 as provided under the Montreal Protocol
save for essential uses that might be authorized by the Parties;
(b) To report periodically on the operation of the system for licensing imports and exports of ODS as
required for all Parties under Article 4 B paragraph 4 of the Montreal Protocol;
(c) To ban, by 1 January 2008, imports of ODS-using equipment;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Nigeria to return to compliance by
2003. In this regard, the Parties urge Nigeria to work with relevant implementing agencies to phase out
5. To closely monitor the progress of Nigeria with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To
the degree that Nigeria is working towards and meeting the specific commitments noted above in
paragraph 3, Nigeria should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this
433
regard, Nigeria should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments
in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the
Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Nigeria, in
Decisions on non-compliance: Oman

MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 8
Decision XVI/28: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Oman
1. To note that Oman has reported annual data for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl
chloroform), for 2003 which are above its requirements for that substance. As a consequence, for 2003,
Oman was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2E of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To note that, in response to a request from the Implementation Committee for an explanation for its
excess consumption and a plan of action to return it to compliance, Oman has introduced a ban on the
import of methyl chloroform;
3. That no action is required on this incident of non-compliance, but that Oman should ensure that a similar
case does not occur again.
Decisions on non-compliance: Pakistan
[Also see Decisions XIV/17 and XV/22, under ‘Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties’]
Decision XVI/29: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Pakistan
1. To note that Pakistan ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 18 December 1992
and the Copenhagen Amendment on 17 February 1995. Pakistan is classified as a Party operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive
Committee in 1996. The Executive Committee has approved $18,492,150 from the Multilateral Fund to
2. To note that, in accordance with decision XV/22 of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties, Pakistan was
3. To note with appreciation Pakistan’s submission of its plan of action, and to note also that, under the plan,
Pakistan specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing halon consumption from 15.0 ODP tonnes in 2003 as follows:
(iii) To phasing out halon consumption by 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for
essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
434
(b) To monitor its enhanced system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances,
including quotas, introduced in 2004;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Pakistan to return to compliance by
2004, and to urge Pakistan to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of
action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group II (halons);
5. To monitor closely the progress of Pakistan with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of halons. To the degree that Pakistan is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
regard, Pakistan should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
Parties cautions Pakistan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event
that it fails to remain in compliance, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures consistent with
item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available
under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of halon (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is
Decision XVIII/31: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Pakistan
1. To note that Pakistan ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 18 December 1992,
the Copenhagen Amendment on 17 February 1995 and the Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 2
September 2005, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had
its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1996. The Executive Committee has approved $20,827,626
from the Multilateral Fund to enable Pakistan’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. To note further that Pakistan has reported annual consumption for the Annex B, group II, controlled
substance (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 148.500 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum
Pakistan is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for carbon tetrachloride under the
Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Pakistan’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride control measures and to note that, under the plan,
without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Pakistan specifically
commits itself:
(a) To reduce carbon tetrachloride consumption from 148.500 ODP-tonnes in 2005 to 41.800 ODP-
tonnes in 2006;
(b) To monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances, which
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Pakistan to return to compliance with
the Protocol in 2006 and to urge Pakistan to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement
its plan of action to phase out consumption of carbon tetrachloride;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Pakistan with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the
standing. In that regard, Pakistan should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
caution Pakistan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it
fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative
435
ensuring that the supply of carbon tetrachloride that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that
Decisions on non-compliance: Papua New Guinea
[Also see Decisions XIII/16 and XIV/17, under ‘Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties’]
Decision XV/40: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Papua New Guinea

MP DECISIONS
1. To note that Papua New Guinea ratified the Montreal Protocol on 27 October 1992, the London
ARTICLE 8
Amendment on 4 May 1993 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 7 October 2003. Papua New Guinea is
classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol and had its country
2. To note also that Papua New Guinea’s baseline for Annex A, group I substances is 36.3 ODP-tonnes. It
reported consumption of 44.3 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, group I substances for the control period
1 July 2000-30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000-June 2001 control period Papua New
Guinea was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Papua New Guinea’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return
to compliance with the control measures for Annex A, group I substances and to note further that, under
the plan, Papua New Guinea specifically commits itself:
(vi) To phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol,
(c) To banning, on or before 31 December 2004, imports of ODS-using equipment;
4. To note that the measures listed above in paragraph 3 should enable Papua New Guinea to return to
compliance by 1 January 2004, and to urge Papua New Guinea to work with the relevant implementing
Annex A, group I;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Papua New Guinea with regard to the implementation of its plan of
action and the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that Papua New Guinea is working towards and meeting
the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in
good standing. In that regard, Papua New Guinea should continue to receive international assistance to
however, the Parties caution Papua New Guinea, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of
436
measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner the Parties will consider
possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is, the
Decisions on non-compliance: Paraguay
[Also see Decisions XIII/16 and XV/25, under ‘Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties’]
MP DECISIONS
governing consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I, (CFCs) and Annex B,
ARTICLE 8
group II, (carbon tetrachloride) by Paraguay and request for a plan of action
1. To note that Paraguay ratified the Montreal Protocol and its London Amendment on 3 December 1992,
the Copenhagen and Montreal Amendments on 27 April 2001 and the Beijing Amendment on 18 July
2006, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country
Montreal Protocol in February 1997. The Executive Committee has approved $1,768,840 from the
Multilateral Fund to enable Paraguay’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. To note further that Paraguay has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex A,
group I, (CFCs) for 2005 of 250.748 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption level of 105.280 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that Paraguay is
therefore in non-compliance with the CFC control measures under the Protocol;
3. To note also that Paraguay has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex B,
group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 6.842 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum
Paraguay is therefore in non-compliance with the carbon tetrachloride control measures under the
Protocol;
4. To request Paraguay to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March 2007,
Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt
return to compliance. Paraguay may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of
import quotas to support the phase-out schedule included in its plan of action and policy and regulatory
instruments that will ensure progress in achieving phase-out;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Paraguay with regard to the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride and
CFCs. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control
Paraguay should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in
Paraguay, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to
return to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures consistent
with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions
available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of carbon tetrachloride and CFCs that are the
subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation
of non-compliance.
437
Decision XIX/22: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Paraguay
Noting that Paraguay ratified the Montreal Protocol and its London Amendment on 3 December 1992, the
Copenhagen and Montreal Amendments on 27 April 2001 and the Beijing Amendment on 18 July 2006, is
classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme
approved by the Executive Committee in February 1997,
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol to enable Paraguay’s
MP DECISIONS
compliance,
ARTICLE 8
1. That Paraguay has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I,
(CFCs) for 2005 of 250.7 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption of
105.3 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and was therefore in non-compliance
with the consumption control measures under the Montreal Protocol for CFCs in 2005,
2. That Paraguay has reported annual consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon
tetrachloride) for 2005 of 0.7 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds its maximum allowable consumption of 0.1
ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and was therefore in non-compliance with the
consumption control measures under the Montreal Protocol for carbon tetrachloride in 2005,
3. To record with appreciation the submission by Paraguay of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s CFC and carbon tetrachloride control measures, under which, without
prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Paraguay specifically commits
itself:
(a) To reducing CFC consumption to no greater than:
(i) 31.6 ODP-tonnes in 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(b) To reducing carbon tetrachloride consumption to no greater than:
(i) 0.1 ODP-tonnes in 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(c) To monitoring its import licensing and quota system for ozone-depleting substances and to
extending that system to carbon tetrachloride;
(d) To monitoring the implementation of its ban on the export of all ozone-depleting substances and the
import of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, whether new or used, which use CFC-11 or
CFC-12;
4. To urge Paraguay to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to
phase out consumption of CFCs and carbon tetrachloride;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Paraguay with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of CFCs and carbon tetrachloride. To the degree that the Party is working toward and
Party in good standing. In that regard, Paraguay should continue to receive international assistance to
may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance;
438
6. To caution Paraguay in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
of the CFCs and carbon tetrachloride that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting
Decisions on non-compliance: Peru
Decision XIII/25: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Peru
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
1. To note that Peru ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 31 March 1993 and the
Copenhagen Amendment on 7 June 1999. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article
5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1995.
Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $4,670,309 from the
2. Peru’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 289.5 ODP tonnes. Peru reported consumption of 296
ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 1999. Peru responded to the Ozone Secretariat’s request
for data for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. Peru reported consumption of 297.6 ODP
tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 1999 to 30
June 2000. As a consequence, for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, Peru was in non-
3. To request that Peru submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific
benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Peru may wish to consider including in its plan
4. To closely monitor the progress of Peru with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To
the degree that Peru is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Peru should
continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Peru should
compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Peru, in accordance with item B of the
indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to return to compliance in a timely
manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.
These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the
supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that importing Parties are not
Decisions on non-compliance: Poland
Decision VII/15: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Poland
Bulgaria, Poland, the Russian Federation and Ukraine at the eleventh meeting of the Open-ended
Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol regarding possible non-fulfilment of their
procedure of Article 8 of the Protocol;
2. To note the consultations of the Implementation Committee with the representatives of Poland regarding
439
3. To accept the assurance given by the representatives of Poland that their country is in compliance with its
obligations under the Montreal Protocol for the year 1995 and is likely to be in compliance with its
obligations under the Montreal Protocol in 1996, even though there are still some doubts concerning the
availability of substitutes;
4. To note that, should Poland have doubts about its compliance with its obligations under the Montreal
Protocol in the year 1996, it should submit the information to the Secretariat as soon as possible so that
the necessary action can be initiated.
Decisions on non-compliance: Qatar

MP DECISIONS
Decision XV/41: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Qatar

ARTICLE 8
1. To note that Qatar ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen amendments on
22 January 1996. Qatar is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol and
had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1999. Since approval of the country
programme, the Executive Committee has approved $698,849 from the Multilateral Fund to enable
2. To note also that Qatar has failed to report data for consumption of Annex A, group I substances for the
control period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 and has reported annual data for 2002 which is
above its requirement for a freeze in consumption. In the absence of further clarification, Qatar is
presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;
3. To urge Qatar, accordingly, to report data for the control period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002
as a matter of urgency;
4. To note further that Qatar’s baseline for Annex A, group II substances is 10.65 ODP-tonnes. It reported
consumption of 13.6 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, group II substances in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002
Qatar was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2B of the Montreal Protocol;
5. To request Qatar to submit to the Implementation Committee, for consideration at its next meeting, a plan
of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Qatar may wish to
consider including in that plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline
levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS-using equipment, and policy and
6. To monitor closely the progress of Qatar with regard to the phase-out of CFCs and halons. To the degree
that Qatar is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be
treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Qatar should continue to receive
Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Qatar, in accordance with item B of the
indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner the
may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs
and halons (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not
440
Decisions on non-compliance: Republic of Korea
Decision XXII/16: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Republic of Korea
1. To note that the Republic of Korea reported the export of 37 metric tonnes of hydrochlorofluorocarbons
in 2008 and 18.2 metric tonnes of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in 2009 to a State classified as not operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol that is also a State not party to the Copenhagen
Amendment to the Protocol, which places the party in non-compliance with the trade restriction against
non-parties to the Protocol;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
2. To note, however, that the party has taken measures not to export hydrochlorofluorocarbons to any State
not party to the Copenhagen and Beijing Amendments to the Montreal Protocol in 2010 and in
subsequent years except to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;
3. That no further action is necessary in view of the undertaking by the Republic of Korea not to authorize
any further exports of hydrochlorofluorocarbons to any non-party to the relevant amendments to the
Montreal Protocol except to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;
Montreal Protocol.
Decisions on non-compliance: Russian Federation
Decision VII/18: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation
Bulgaria, Poland, the Russian Federation and Ukraine regarding possible non-fulfilment of their
Group, as well as the official message of the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation
dated 26 May 1995;
2. To note the consultations of the Implementation Committee with the representatives of the Russian
Federation regarding possible non-fulfilment of that Party’s obligations under the Montreal Protocol;
3. To note that the Russian Federation was in compliance with its obligations under the Montreal Protocol in
1995 and that it is expected that there will be a situation of non-compliance in the Russian Federation in
1996 so that the Implementation Committee will have to revert to that question that year;
4. To acknowledge the major efforts of the Russian Federation to provide data in response to the request by
the Implementation Committee;
5. To underline the urgency of further action to phase out ozone-depleting substances in production and
consumption;
6. To note that the Russian Federation has promised to provide additional information on:
(a) The political commitment on the phase-out plan for ozone-depleting substances by the Russian
Federation;
(b) The necessary linkages between the sectoral approach outlined by the Russian Federation in its
submission and the specific requirements for the financial, institutional and administrative
arrangements towards the implementation of such measures;
441
trade regulations;
7. To note that the Russian Federation will submit more detailed information to the Ozone Secretariat by the
end of January 1996 for consideration of the Implementation Committee at an inter-sessional meeting in
the first quarter of 1996;
8. To allow, in order to take into account the economic and social problems in countries with economies in
transition, the Russian Federation to export substances controlled under the Montreal Protocol to Parties
operating under Article 2 of the Protocol that are members of the Commonwealth of Independent States,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
including Belarus and Ukraine. In doing so, the Russian Federation will undertake the necessary action to
secure that no re-exports will be made from the Commonwealth of Independent States, including Belarus
and Ukraine, to any Party to the Montreal Protocol;
9. To recommend that international assistance to enable compliance of the Russian Federation with the
Montreal Protocol in line with the following provisions should be considered:
Implementation Committee. The Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund will periodically inform the
Executive Committee on any progress made in relation to such international assistance to enable
compliance given to the Russian Federation;
(b) The Russian Federation shall submit annual reports on progress in phasing out ODS in line with the
schedule included in the submission of the Russian Federation to the Parties;
(c) The reports should include – in addition to the data to be reported under Articles 7 and 4 of the
Montreal Protocol and on recovering and recycling facilities – updated information on the elements
mentioned in paragraph 6 of the present decision, including information on trade in substances
controlled under the Montreal Protocol with Parties members of the Commonwealth of Independent
States and Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, to monitor whether the levels of
production allowed under the Montreal Protocol to satisfy the basic domestic needs of Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 are not exceeded;
(d) The reports should be submitted in due time to enable the Ozone Secretariat – together with the
(e) In case of any questions related to the reporting requirements and the actions of the Russian
Federation, the disbursement of the international assistance should be contingent on the settlement
of those problems with the Implementation Committee.
Decision VIII/25: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation
1. To recall decision VII/18 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties by which the Russian Federation was,
inter alia, requested to provide to the Implementation Committee, in 1996, additional information relative
to the implementation of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To note that, according to its written submissions and the statements of the representative of the Russian
Federation at the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth meetings of the Implementation
Committee, the Russian Federation was in a situation of non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol in
1996;
3. To note also the considerable progress made by the Russian Federation in addressing non-compliance
issues raised by the Seventh Meeting of the Parties;
442
4. That the situation regarding the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances should be kept under review,
specifically with regard to the additional information requested from the Russian Federation in
paragraph 9 (c) of decision VII/18 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties and, in particular, the detailed
information on trade in ozone-depleting substances;
5. That the disbursement of financial assistance for ODS-phase-out in the Russian Federation should
continue to be contingent on further developments with regard to non-compliance and the settlement with
the Implementation Committee of any problems related to the reporting requirements and the actions of
the Russian Federation;
6. That the Russian Federation should maximize the use of its recycling facilities to meet its internal needs
MP DECISIONS
and therefore diminish the production of new CFCs accordingly;
ARTICLE 8
7. To note that the Russian Federation has undertaken to report detailed information, including quantities,
on imports and exports of ODS and products containing such substances; data on the type of ODS
(freshly produced, recovered, recycled, reclaimed, re-used, used in feedstock); and details of the supplier,
recipient and conditions of delivery of the substances for 1996 not later than February 1997;
8. To keep under review the situation regarding the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances in the Russian
Federation.
Decision IX/31: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation
1. To note the detailed information reported by the Russian Federation in response to decision VIII/25 of the
Eighth Meeting of the Parties on quantities of imports and exports of ODS and products containing such
substances; data on the type of ODS (new, recovered, recycled, reclaimed, reused, used as feedstock);
details of suppliers, recipient countries and conditions of delivery of the substances for 1996;
2. To note with appreciation the clarifications on details of imports and/or exports of ODS from the Russian
Federation in 1996, provided by some Parties mentioned in the Russian Federation’s submission to the
3. To note the information reported by the Russian Federation in response to the Implementation
Committee’s request at its seventeenth meeting regarding information on ways in which the Russian
Federation was maximizing the use of its recycling facilities to meet internal needs and to diminish
production of new CFCs;
4. That the Russian Federation was in a situation of non-compliance with the Protocol in 1996 as noted in
decision VIII/25 and there is an expectation of non-compliance in 1997 so that the Implementation
Committee might have to revert to this question at the appropriate time;
5. To note also that the Russian Federation had exported both new and reclaimed substances to some Parties
operating under Article 5 and those Parties not operating under that Article and those Parties had
imported small quantities of ODS from the Russian Federation in 1996;
6. To note further that the Russian Federation had started implementation of its exports control of ozone-
depleting substances from July 1996 by not exporting any ODS including used, new, recycled or
reclaimed substances, to any Party with the exception of Parties operating under Article 5 and of Parties
that are members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, including Belarus and Ukraine, as per
decision VII/18;
7. In the light of the information on the recovery and recycling in the Russian Federation provided by the
representative of that country, international assistance, particularly by the Global Environment Facility,
should continue to be considered favourably in order to provide funding for the Russian Federation for
projects to implement the programme for the phase-out of the production and consumption of ozone-
depleting substances in the country;
443
8. To keep under review the situation regarding the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances in the Russian
Federation.
Decision X/26: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation
1. To note that the Russian Federation ratified the London Amendment on 13 January 1992. The country is
classified as a non-Article 5 Party under the Protocol and, for 1996, reported positive consumption of
13,955 ODP tonnes, none of which was for essential uses exempted by the Parties. As a consequence, in
1996, the Russian Federation was in non-compliance with its control obligations under Articles 2A
through 2E of the Montreal Protocol. The Russian Federation also expresses a belief that this situation
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
will continue through at least the year 2000, necessitating annual review by the Implementation
Committee and the Parties until such time as the Russian Federation comes into compliance;
2. To note with appreciation that the Russian Federation is making significant progress in coming into
compliance with the Montreal Protocol. Data reported for 1996 indicates that the Russian Federation
reduced consumption of CFCs from 20,990 ODP tonnes in 1995, to a level of 12,345 ODP tonnes. The
Russian Federation submitted a country programme in October 1995 (revised in November 1995) that
contains specific benchmarks and a phase-out schedule. In 1996, production of Annex A, Group I,
substances was 16,770 ODP tonnes, well below the benchmark of 28,000 ODP tonnes contained in the
country programme. Further steps were taken to bring the Russian Federation into compliance with its
obligations under Articles 2A through 2E of the Montreal Protocol when, in October 1998, the “Special
Initiative for ODS Production Closure in the Russian Federation” (Special Initiative) was signed. The
Parties note that, in the country programme and the Special Initiative, the Russian Federation commits:
– To reduce consumption of Annex A, Group I, substances to no more than 6,280 ODP tonnes in
1999;
– To reduce consumption of Annex A, Group II, substances to no more than 960 ODP tonnes in 1999;
– To reduce consumption of Annex B, Group I, substances to no more than 18 ODP tonnes in 1999;
– To phase out the production of Annex A substances by 1 June 2000; and
– To phase out the consumption of Annex A and B substances by 1 June 2000;
3. To closely monitor the progress of the Russian Federation with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting
substances, particularly towards meeting the specific commitments in the 1995 country programme and
the Special Initiative noted above. In this regard, the Parties request that the Russian Federation submit a
complete copy of its country programme, and subsequent updates, if any, to the Ozone Secretariat. To the
degree that the Russian Federation is working towards and meeting the specific time-based commitments
in the country programme and the Special Initiative and continues to report data annually demonstrating a
decrease in imports and consumption, the Russian Federation should continue to be treated in the same
manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, the Russian Federation should continue to receive
indicative list of measures that might be taken by a meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance.
However, through this decision, the Parties caution the Russian Federation, in accordance with item B of
the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to meet the commitments noted in
prior decisions as well as in the above documents in the times specified, the Parties shall consider
measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures could include the
possibility of actions that may be available under Article 4, designed to ensure that the supply of CFCs
and halons that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased, and that exporting Parties are not contributing
444
Decision XIII/17: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation
Having considered the report of the Secretariat on data compliance issues in documents UNEP/OzL.Pro.13/3
and UNEP/OzL.Pro.13/3/Add.1, including Analysis of Data on Production and Consumption by Groups of
Substances, and having followed up on the recommendations of the previous meetings of the Implementation
Committee,
1. To note that the Russian Federation is operating under an agreed phase-out plan “List of urgent measures
to the phase-out of production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances in the Russian Federation
MP DECISIONS
over the period 1999-2000” of 30 December 1999;
ARTICLE 8
2. To note that the Russian Federation was in non-compliance with the phase-out benchmarks for 1999 and
2000 for the production and consumption of the ozone-depleting substances covered by Annex A;
3. To note the contribution of the “Special initiative for the phase-out of ozone-depleting production in the
Russian Federation” to assist in the phase-out of production of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A
and Annex B in the Russian Federation;
4. To note with appreciation the fact that the Russian Federation closed CFC production as from
20 December 2000 and stopped Annex A and B ODS import and export operations as from
1 March 2000, as was confirmed in the letter of the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation of
9 December 2000 and of the First Deputy Minister of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation of
9 October 2000;
5. To recommend that the Russian Federation should, with the assistance of international funding agencies,
proceed with the agreed phase-out benchmarks of production and consumption of the Annex A and B
ODS to be in full compliance with its obligations under the Montreal Protocol and the London
Amendment;
6. To welcome the action taken by the Russian Federation to examine the possibility of ratifying the
Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments to the Montreal protocol, as was stated by the Prime
Minister in his letter of 9 December 2000.
Decision XIV/35: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation
1. To note that the Russian Federation was in non-compliance with the phase-out benchmarks for 1999 and
2000 for the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A to the Montreal
Protocol;
2. To note with appreciation that the data reported by the Russian Federation for 2001 confirms the
complete phase-out of production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annexes A and B,
as noted by the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties in Decision XIII/17;
3. To commend the efforts made by the Russian Federation to comply with the control measures of the
Montreal Protocol;
4. To recognise the support and assistance rendered by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to enable
compliance by the Russian Federation.
445
Decision XXIII/27: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation
Noting that the Russian Federation reported the export of 70.2 metric tonnes of Annex C, group I, controlled
substances (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) in 2009 to a State classified as not operating under paragraph 1 of Article
5 of the Montreal Protocol that was also a State not party to the Copenhagen Amendment or the Beijing
Amendment to the Protocol in that year, which places the Russian Federation in non-compliance with the
provisions of Article 4 of the Protocol prohibiting trade with any State not party to the Protocol,
MP DECISIONS
measures to ensure its compliance with the provisions of the Protocol governing trade with non-parties;
ARTICLE 8
Montreal Protocol.
Decisions on non-compliance: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Decision XIV/24: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines
1. To note that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ratified the Montreal Protocol, the London Amendment
and the Copenhagen Amendment on 2 December 1996. The country is classified as a Party operating
under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee
in 1998. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $152,889
from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines’ baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 2 ODP-tonnes. It reported
consumption of 6 and 7 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and 2001 respectively, and
consumption of 9 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period
of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal
Protocol;
3. To request that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of
action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines may wish to consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to
freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment,
4. To closely monitor the progress of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines with regard to the phase-out of
ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is working towards and
meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines should continue to be
treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, in
446
Decision XV/42: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines
1. To note that, in accordance with decision XIV/24 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines was requested to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-
2. To note also that the baseline of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for Annex A, group I substances is
1.77 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 6.04, 6.86 and 6.02 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, group I
MP DECISIONS
substances in 2000, 2001 and 2002 respectively, and consumption of 9 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, group I
ARTICLE 8
substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. It has failed to
report data for CFC consumption for the control period of 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002. As a
consequence, for the period 2000-2002, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was in non-compliance with its
3. To note with regret that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has not fulfilled the requirements of
decision XIV/24 and to request that it should submit to the Implementation Committee, as a matter of
urgency, for consideration at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks in order for
the Committee to monitor its progress towards compliance;
4. To stress to the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines its obligations under the Montreal
Protocol to phase out the consumption of ozone-depleting substances, and the accompanying need for it
to establish and maintain an effective governmental policy and institutional framework for the purposes
of implementing and monitoring the national phase-out strategy;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines with regard to the phase-out of
CFCs. To the degree that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is working towards and meeting the specific
Protocol control measures, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines should continue to be treated in the same
manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines should continue to
Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, in
compliance in a timely manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative
Decision XVI/30: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines
1. To note that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and
Copenhagen amendments on 2 December 1996. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is classified as a Party
Executive Committee in 1998. The Executive Committee has approved $166,019 from the Multilateral
Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. To note that, in accordance with decision XV/42 of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties, Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines was requested to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-
3. To note with appreciation the submission by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines of its plan of action, and to
note also that, under the plan, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines specifically commits itself:
447
(a) To reducing CFC consumption from 3.07 ODP tonnes in 2003 as follows:
(v) To 0.22 ODP tonnes in 2008;

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
(vi) To 0.1 ODP tonnes in 2009;
(vii) To phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol,
(b) To monitoring its existing system for licensing imports of ozone-depleting substances and its ban on
imports of ozone-depleting-substances-using equipment, introduced in 2003;
(c) To introducing an ozone-depleting substances quota system by the last quarter of 2004, which will
become effective from 1 January 2005;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to
return to compliance by 2008, and to urge Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to work with the relevant
implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase-out of consumption of ozone-depleting
substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs);
5. To monitor closely the progress of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines with regard to the implementation of
its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is
the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines should
continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with
compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties cautions Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it
fails to remain in compliance, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of
the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and
Decisions on non-compliance: Saudi Arabia
Decision XIX/23: Potential non-compliance in 2005 with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol
governing consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) by Saudi
Arabia and request for a plan of action
Noting that Saudi Arabia ratified the Montreal Protocol and its London and Copenhagen Amendments on 1
March 1993 and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Protocol has approved $65,000 from the Fund in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol to enable Saudi
Arabia’s compliance,
1. That Saudi Arabia reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl
bromide) for 2005 of 27.6 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds its maximum allowable consumption level of 0.5
ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and is therefore presumed in the absence of
448
further clarification to be in non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures under the Montreal
Protocol for methyl bromide;
2. To request Saudi Arabia to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 29 February
2008, for consideration by the Implementation Committee at its next meeting, an explanation for its
excess consumption, together with a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure the Party’s
prompt return to compliance. Saudi Arabia may wish to consider including in its plan of action the
establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out schedule and policy and regulatory instruments
that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
3. To monitor closely the progress of Saudi Arabia with regard to the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the
MP DECISIONS
degree that the Party is working toward and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should
ARTICLE 8
continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Saudi Arabia should
A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of
non-compliance;
4. To caution Saudi Arabia in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by
a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance that, in the event that it fails to return to compliance
in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the
indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of the methyl bromide that is the subject of non-compliance is
consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (chlorofluorocarbons), by Saudi
Arabia and request for a plan of action
Noting that Saudi Arabia ratified the Montreal Protocol, and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 1
March 1993, and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting also that the Executive Committee has approved $2,378,485 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Saudi
Arabia’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol,
1. That Saudi Arabia has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I
(chlorofluorocarbons), for 2007 of 657.8 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption of 269.8 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that the Party is
therefore in non compliance with the control measures for those substances under the Protocol for that
year;
2. To request Saudi Arabia to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March
2010, for consideration by the Implementation Committee at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-
specific benchmarks to ensure the Party’s prompt return to compliance;
3. To monitor closely the progress of Saudi Arabia with regard to the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons. To
the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should
continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Saudi Arabia should
non-compliance;
4. To caution Saudi Arabia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event
that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures
actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of the chlorofluorocarbons that are the
449
of non-compliance.
Decision XXII/15: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Saudi Arabia
Noting that Saudi Arabia ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 1
March 1993 and is classified as a party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
MP DECISIONS
Protocol has approved 2,749,975 United States dollars from the Multilateral Fund to enable Saudi Arabia’s
ARTICLE 8
compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol, and that Saudi Arabia had its country programme
approved by the Executive Committee in November 2007,
Noting further that Saudi Arabia reported annual consumption for the controlled substances listed in Annex A,
group I (chlorofluorocarbons), of 657.8 ODP-tonnes for 2007 and of 365 ODP-tonnes for 2008, which exceeds
the party’s maximum allowable consumption of 269.8 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for those two
years, and that the party was therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for chlorofluorocarbons
under the Protocol for 2007 and 2008,
Noting, however, that Saudi Arabia reported consumption of Annex A, group I, substances
(chlorofluorocarbons) of 190 ODP-tonnes for 2009, which places the party in compliance with the
chlorofluorocarbon control measures for that year,
1. To note with appreciation Saudi Arabia’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s chlorofluorocarbon control measures, under which, without prejudice to
the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Saudi Arabia specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing chlorofluorocarbon consumption to no greater than zero ODP-tonnes in 2010, save for
essential uses that may be authorized by the parties;
(b) To monitoring its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances;
2. To urge Saudi Arabia to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to
phase out the consumption of chlorofluorocarbons;
3. To monitor closely the progress of Saudi Arabia with regard to the implementation of its plan of action
and the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons. To the degree that the party is working towards and meeting
the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a party in
good standing. In that regard, Saudi Arabia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it
to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken
by the Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance;
4. To caution Saudi Arabia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken
by the Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that, in the event that it fails to return to
supply of chlorofluorocarbons that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting parties
450
Decisions on non-compliance: Serbia
Decision XVIII/33: Non-compliance with data-reporting requirements for the purpose of

establishing baselines under paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d) of Article 5 by Serbia
1. To note that Serbia has not reported the data required for the establishment of baselines for the controlled
substances in Annex B (other CFCs, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform) for the years 1998 and
1999, as provided for by paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d) of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol;
MP DECISIONS
2. To note that the failure to report such data places Serbia in non-compliance with its data-reporting
ARTICLE 8
obligations under the Protocol until such time as the Secretariat receives the outstanding data;
3. To stress that compliance by Serbia with the Protocol cannot be evaluated without the outstanding data;
4. To acknowledge that Serbia has only recently ratified the amendments to the Protocol that require it to
report data on the controlled substances indicated in paragraph 1 of the present decision and also that
Serbia has recently experienced a considerable change in its national circumstances in connection with
which it has undertaken to continue the legal personality of the former Serbia and Montenegro in respect
of the Protocol for the territory under its control effective 3 June 2006, but also to note that the Party has
received assistance with data collection from the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol through the Fund's implementing agencies;
5. To urge Serbia to work together with the United Nations Environment Programme under that agency’s
Compliance Assistance Programme and with other implementing agencies of the Multilateral Fund to
report the data, as a matter of urgency, to the Secretariat;
to review the situation of Serbia with respect to data reporting at its next meeting.
Decisions on non-compliance: Sierra Leone
Decision XVII/38: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Sierra Leone, and request for
a plan of action
1. To note that Sierra Leone ratified the Montreal Protocol and all its amendments on 29 August 2001, is
Montreal Protocol in December 2003. The Executive Committee has approved $660,021 from the
2. To note further that Sierra Leone has reported annual consumption of the controlled substances in Annex
A, group II (halons), for 2004 of 18.45 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption level of 16.00 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that Sierra
Leone is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;
3. To request Sierra Leone, as a matter of urgency, to submit to the Implementation Committee for
consideration at its next meeting a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return
to compliance. Sierra Leone may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of
import quotas to support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of equipment using ozone-depleting
substances, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. To monitor closely the progress of Sierra Leone with regard to the phase-out of the controlled substances
in Annex A, group II (halons). To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific
451
standing. In that regard, Sierra Leone should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to
meet its commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
of the Parties cautions Sierra Leone, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in
the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider
possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of the controlled
substances in Annex A, group II (halons), that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that
Decisions on non-compliance: Singapore

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
Decision XXII/13: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Singapore
1. To note that Singapore reported the export of 32 metric tonnes of methyl bromide in 2008 to a State
classified as operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol that is also a State not party to the
Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which places the party in non-compliance with the
restriction on trade with non-parties to the Protocol;
2. To urge Singapore to refrain from engaging in trade in methyl bromide with States not party to the
Copenhagen Amendment;
Montreal Protocol.
Decisions on non-compliance: Solomon Islands
Decision XX/18: Potential non-compliance in 2006 with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol
in respect of consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I,
(chlorofluorocarbons) by Solomon Islands and request for a plan of action and data for the
year 2007
Noting that Solomon Islands ratified the Montreal Protocol on 17 June 1993, the London Amendment on 17
August 1999 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 17 August 1999, is classified as a Party operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in
March 2002,
Noting also that the Executive Committee has approved $119,233 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Solomon
Islands’ compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol,
Noting further that Solomon Islands has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex A,
group I (chlorofluorocarbons), for 2006 of 1.4 ODP tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption level of 1.1 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year and that in the absence of further
clarification Solomon Islands is therefore presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the
Protocol,
Noting that Solomon Islands has still not reported its ozone-depleting substances data for 2007 in accordance
with Article 7 of the Protocol, thereby placing the Party in non-compliance with its data-reporting obligations
under the Montreal Protocol,
452
1. To request Solomon Islands to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than
31 March 2009, for consideration by the Implementation Committee at its next meeting, an explanation
for its excess consumption in 2006, together with a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to
ensure the Party’s prompt return to compliance;
2. To request Solomon Islands further to report the outstanding data for 2007 as a matter of urgency, and
preferably no later than 31 March 2009, in time for consideration by the Implementation Committee at its
forty-second meeting;
3. To monitor closely the progress of Solomon Islands with regard to the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons.
To the degree that the Party is working toward and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it
MP DECISIONS
should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Solomon
ARTICLE 8
Islands should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in
respect of non-compliance;
4. To caution Solomon Islands, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event
actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of the chlorofluorocarbons that is the
of non-compliance.
Decision XXI/22: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Solomon Islands
1. That Solomon Islands reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I
(chlorofluorocarbons), of 1.4 ODP-tonnes for 2006, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption of 1.1 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that the Party is
therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for those substances under the Protocol for that
year;
2. To note, however, that in response to the request for an explanation for its excess consumption contained
in decision XX/18 of the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties, Solomon Islands reported that its Custom and
Excise Act had been amended in 2007 to include restrictions on imports of chlorofluorocarbons, which
therefore had not applied formally prior to that year;
3. To note further Solomon Islands’ return to compliance in 2007 and its commitment to restrict imports of
chlorofluorocarbons, which had taken effect from 2008;
4. To monitor closely the progress of the Party with regard to its implementation of its obligations under the
Protocol.
Decisions on non-compliance: Somalia
Decision XVI/19: Potential non-compliance with consumption of Annex A, group II, ozone-
depleting substances (halons) by Somalia in 2002 and 2003, and request for a plan of action
1. To note that Somalia has reported annual data for Annex A, group II, ozone-depleting substances (halons)
for both 2002 and 2003 which are above its requirement for a freeze in consumption;
2. To note further that, in the absence of further clarification, Somalia is presumed to be in non-compliance
with the control measures under the Protocol;
453
3. To request Somalia, as a matter of urgency, to submit to the Implementation Committee for consideration
at its next meeting explanations for its excess consumption, together with a plan of action with time-
specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Somalia may wish to consider including in
its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the
phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ozone-depleting-substances-using equipment, and policy and
4. To monitor closely the progress of Somalia with regard to the phase-out of halons. To the degree that
Somalia is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be
treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Somalia should continue to receive
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties cautions Somalia, in accordance with item B of the
supply of halons (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not
Decision XX/19: Non-compliance with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol in respect of
consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, groups I (chlorofluorocarbons) and II
(halons) by Somalia
Noting that Somalia ratified the Montreal Protocol and its London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing
Amendments on 1 August 2001 and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Protocol,
Noting also that Somalia has no country programme that has been approved by the Executive Committee of the
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol,
Acknowledging the serious challenges faced by Somalia in implementing its obligations under the Montreal
Protocol and also acknowledging the progress made by the Party in spite of those challenges,
Noting that Somalia has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I
(chlorofluorocarbons), for the year 2007 of 79.5 ODP tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption level of 36.2 ODP tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that in the absence of
further clarification Somalia is therefore presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the
Protocol,
Noting also that Somalia reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group-II
(halons), for 2006 of 18.8 ODP tonnes and 13.2 ODP tonnes for 2007, which exceeds the Party’s maximum
allowable consumption of 8.8 ODP tonnes for those controlled substances for those years and that Somalia was
therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for halons under the Protocol,
1. To note with appreciation Somalia’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s halon control measures under which, without prejudice to the operation of
the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Somalia specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing halon consumption to no greater than:
(i) 9.4 ODP tonnes in 2008;
(ii) 9.4 ODP tonnes in 2009;
(iii) Zero ODP tonnes in 2010, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;
454
(b) To introducing a system for licensing the imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances,
including import quotas, by the end of December 2009;
2. To request Somalia to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March 2009,
for consideration by the Implementation Committee at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-
specific benchmarks to ensure the Party’s prompt return to compliance with its consumption of
3. To urge Somalia to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to
phase out consumption of halons and implementation of its licensing system and to participate in regional
network activities;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
4. To request the Executive Committee, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism, to
consider innovative ways of assisting the Party, through the implementing agencies of the Multilateral
Fund, to implement its plan of action to phase out halons and to implement its licensing system,
including, but not limited to, awareness-raising, institutional strengthening and technical assistance;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Somalia with regard to the implementation of its plan of action to
phase-out halons and the implementation of its licensing system;
6. To the degree that the Party is working toward and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it
should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Somalia
should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance
non-compliance;
7. To caution Somalia in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4 such as ensuring that the supply
of halons that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to
a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decision XXI/23: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Somalia
Noting that Somalia ratified the Montreal Protocol and its London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing
Amendments on 1 August 2001 and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Protocol,
Noting also that, while Somalia has not yet had a country programme approved by the Executive Committee of
the Multilateral Fund, a country programme has been submitted to the Committee for consideration at its fifty-
ninth meeting and is recommended for approval,
1. That Somalia reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I
(chlorofluorocarbons), for 2007 of 79.5 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption of 36.2 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year and that Somalia was
therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for those substances under the Protocol for that
year;
2. To note, however, that Somalia’s reported chlorofluorocarbon consumption for 2008 was in compliance
with its obligations under the chlorofluorocarbon control measures of the Montreal Protocol for that year;
3. To note with appreciation Somalia’s introduction, as called for in decision XX/19, of a system for
licensing the imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, including import quotas, which had
taken effect from October 2009;
455
4. To note also with appreciation Somalia’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to
the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Somalia specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing chlorofluorocarbon consumption to no greater than zero ODP-tonnes in 2010,

5. To urge Somalia to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to
MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 8
6. To monitor closely the progress of Somalia with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons. To the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the
standing. In that regard, Somalia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
7. To caution Somalia in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that, in the event that it fails to return to compliance,
of chlorofluorocarbons that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not
Decisions on non-compliance: Tajikistan
Decision XIII/20: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Tajikistan
1. To note that Tajikistan ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 7 January 1998.
The country is classified as a non-Article 5 Party under the Protocol and, for 1999, reported positive
consumption of 50.8 ODP tonnes of Annex A and B substances, none of which was for essential uses
exempted by the Parties. As a consequence, in 1999 Tajikistan was in non-compliance with its control
obligations under Articles 2A through 2E of the Montreal Protocol. Tajikistan also expresses a belief that
this situation will continue through at least the year 2004, necessitating annual review by the
Implementation Committee and the Parties until such time as Tajikistan comes into compliance;
2. To express great concern about Tajikistan’s non-compliance and to note that Tajikistan only very recently
assumed the obligations of the Montreal Protocol, having ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London
Amendment in 1998. It is with that understanding that the Parties note, after reviewing the country
programme and submissions of Tajikistan, that Tajikistan specifically commits itself:
(a) To reduce CFC consumption to 14.08 ODP tonnes for the calendar year 2002, to 4.69 ODP tonnes
for 2003 and to phase out CFC consumption by 1 January 2004 (save for essential uses authorized
by the Parties);
(b) To phase out consumption of all other Annex A and B controlled substances by 1 January 2002;
(c) To establish, in 2002, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS;
(d) To reduce methyl bromide consumption to 0.56 ODP tonnes for calendar year 2002, to 0.28 ODP
tonnes for calendar year 2003, and to phase out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2005;
3. That the measures listed in paragraph 2 above should enable Tajikistan to achieve the near total phase-out
of all Annex B substances by 1 January 2002, all Annex A substances by 1 January 2004 and the Annex
456
E substance by 1 January 2005. In this regard, the Parties urge Tajikistan to work with relevant
implementing agencies to shift current consumption to non-ozone-depleting alternatives;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Tajikistan with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances,
that Tajikistan submit a complete copy of its country programme and subsequent updates, if any, to the
Ozone Secretariat. To the degree that Tajikistan is working towards and meeting the specific time-based
consumption, Tajikistan should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In
this regard, Tajikistan should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these
MP DECISIONS
Tajikistan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country
ARTICLE 8
actions that may be available under Article 4, designed to ensure that the supply of Annex A and B
controlled substances that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased, and that exporting Parties are not
Decisions on non-compliance: Timor Leste
Decision XXI/24: Difficulties faced by Timor-Leste as a new Party
Notes with appreciation Timor-Leste’s joining the international community in its efforts to protect the ozone
layer, with its accession to the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and all its amendments, making the
Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol the first international treaties deposited with the United Nations
Secretary General to have universal participation,
Notes also that the ozone treaties will enter into force for Timor-Leste on 16 December 2009,
Recognizing the difficulties faced by Timor-Leste by joining the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol
and all its amendments shortly before key phase-out dates,
Understanding Timor-Leste’s commitments for phasing out ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal
Protocol and its amendments within a limited time frame,
1. To urge all Parties to assist Timor-Leste, as a new Party, in controlling the export of ozone-depleting
substances and ozone-depleting substance-based technologies into Timor-Leste through the control of
trade as per the provisions of the Montreal Protocol and relevant decisions of the Meeting of the Parties
and to encourage Timor-Leste to participate in an informal prior informed consent process as referred to
in decision XIX/12;
2. To request the Executive Committee when considering project proposals for Timor-Leste to phase out
ozone-depleting substances to take into account the special situation of this new Party, which may face
difficulties in the phase out of ozone-depleting substances in annexes A, B and E, and to be flexible in
considering the project proposals, without prejudice to the possible review of the non-compliance
situation of Timor-Leste by the Parties;
3. To request the implementing agencies to provide appropriate assistance to Timor-Leste in institutional

strengthening, capacity building, data collection, development of its country programme and national
phase-out plans and in continuing its efforts to report to the Secretariat next year, data on consumption of
ozone-depleting substances in accordance with the Montreal Protocol requirements;
4. To request the Implementation Committee to consider difficulties faced by Timor-Leste when addressing
any possible non-compliance situations faced by Timor-Leste after the date on which the Protocol and its
Amendments enter into force for Timor-Leste and report on the compliance situation of Timor-Leste to
457
the Open-ended Working Group preceding the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties, during which the
present decision will be reconsidered.
Decisions on non-compliance: Turkmenistan
Decision XI/25: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Turkmenistan
1. To note that Turkmenistan acceded to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol on 18 November
1993 and acceded to the London Amendment on 15 March 1994. The country is classified as a non-
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
consequence, in 1996 Turkmenistan was in non-compliance with its control obligations under Articles 2A
through 2E of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To note with appreciation the work done by Turkmenistan in cooperation with the Global Environment
Facility to develop a country programme and establish a phase-out plan to bring Turkmenistan into
compliance with the Montreal Protocol in 2003;
3. To note that Turkmenistan, in cooperation with the Global Environment Facility, had delineated the
following draft benchmarks that could serve to measure progress in the phase-out process until 2003:
(a) 1999: Import of CFCs should not exceed 22 ODP tonnes;
(b) 1 January 2000: Import/export licensing system in place; bans on import of equipment using and
containing ODS; import quota for CFCs in 2000 not exceeding 15 ODP tonnes (roughly 50 per cent
compared to 1996)
(c) 1 January 2000: Ban on the import of all Annex A and B substances except CFCs listed in Annex A
(1);
(d) 1 January 2000: Import quota for CFCs in 2001 not exceeding 10 ODP tonnes (-66 per cent
compared to 1996); effective system for monitoring and controlling ODS trade in place and
working;
(e) 1 July 2001: recovery and recycling and training projects completed;
(f) 1 January 2002: Import quota for CFCs in 2002 not to exceed 6 ODP tonnes (-80 per cent compared
to 1996);
(g) 1 January 2003: Total prohibition of imports of Annex A and B substances/zero quota; completion
of Global Environment Facility project.
4. To monitor closely the progress of Turkmenistan with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting
substances, particularly towards meeting the specific commitments noted above and, in this regard, to
request that Turkmenistan submit a complete copy of its country programme when approved, including
the specific benchmarks, to the Implementation Committee, through the Ozone Secretariat, for its
consideration at its next meeting. To the degree that Turkmenistan is working towards and meeting the
specific time-based commitments noted above and continues to report data annually demonstrating a
decrease in imports and consumption, Turkmenistan should continue to be treated in the same manner as
a Party in good standing. In this regard, Turkmenistan should continue to receive international assistance
to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that
might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through this decision, however,
the Parties caution Turkmenistan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the
event that the country fails to meet the commitments noted above in the times specified, the Parties shall
of CFCs and halons that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased and that exporting Parties are not
458
consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group II (carbon tetrachloride), by
Turkmenistan and request for a plan of action
Noting that Turkmenistan ratified the Montreal Protocol on 18 November 1993, and the London Amendment on
15 March 1994, and the Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 28 March 2008, and is classified as
a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting also that the Executive Committee has approved $336,973 from the Multilateral Fund to enable
MP DECISIONS
Turkmenistan’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol,
ARTICLE 8
1. That Turkmenistan has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex B, group II
(carbon tetrachloride), for 2008 of 0.3 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable
consumption of zero ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that the Party is therefore
in non compliance with the control measures for that substance under the Protocol for that year;
2. To request Turkmenistan to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March
2010, for consideration by the Implementation Committee at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-
3. To monitor closely the progress of Turkmenistan with regard to the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride. To
the degree that the Party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should
continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Turkmenistan
should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in accordance
non-compliance;
4. To caution Turkmenistan in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event
actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of the carbon tetrachloride that is the
of non-compliance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Uganda
Decision XV/43: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Uganda
1. To note that Uganda ratified the Montreal Protocol on 15 September 1988, the London Amendment on
20 January 1994, the Copenhagen Amendment on 22 November 1999 and the Montreal Amendment on
23 November 1999. Uganda is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol
country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $547,896 from the Multilateral Fund to
2. To note also that Uganda’s baseline for Annex A, group I substances is 12.8 ODP-tonnes. It has failed to
report data for either of the control periods 1 July 2000-30 June 2001 and 1 July 2001-31 December 2002,
and has reported annual data for 2001 which is above its baseline. In the absence of further clarification,
Uganda is presumed to be in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal
Protocol;
3. To urge Uganda, accordingly, to report data for the control periods from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 and
1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, as a matter of urgency;
459
4. To note further that Uganda has presented sufficient information to justify its request for a change in its
baseline consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E from 1.9 ODP-tonnes to 6.3 ODP-tonnes,
and that that change is therefore approved;
5. To note that Uganda presented its request for a baseline change before the Implementation Committee
had been able to recommend a standard methodology for the presentation of requests for such changes,
and that all future requests should follow the methodology described in decision XV/19;
6. To note, however, that Uganda reported consumption of 30 ODP-tonnes for the controlled substance in
Annex E in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002, even after the revision in its baseline, Uganda was in non-
compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
7. To note with appreciation Uganda’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol,
Uganda specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing methyl bromide consumption from 30 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:
(i) To 24 ODP-tonnes in 2003 and in 2004;
(iv) To phasing out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2007, as provided in the plan for
(b) To monitoring its system for licensing imports and exports of ODS introduced in 1998, which will
be modified by the inclusion of quotas in the first quarter of 2004;
(c) To introducing a ban on imports of ODS-using equipment in the first quarter of 2004;
8. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 7 above should enable Uganda to return to compliance by
2007, and to urge Uganda to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of
9. To monitor closely the progress of Uganda with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the
phase-out of CFCs and methyl bromide. To the degree that Uganda is working towards and meeting the
standing. In that regard, Uganda should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
caution Uganda, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails
to return to compliance in a timely manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs and methyl bromide (that is, the subjects of non-
compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-
compliance.
460
Decisions on non-compliance: Ukraine
Decision VII/19: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ukraine
Bulgaria, Poland, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine regarding possible non-fulfilment of their
MP DECISIONS
Group;
ARTICLE 8
2. To note the consultations of the Implementation Committee with the representatives of Ukraine regarding
3. To note that Ukraine was in compliance with its obligations under the Montreal Protocol in 1995 and that
revert to that question that year;
4. To note that Ukraine submitted its draft country programme for the phase-out of ozone-depleting
substances in Ukraine to the Implementation Committee;
5. To note that Ukraine promised to provide additional information on the political commitment on the
phase-out programme for ozone-depleting substances by Ukraine and that the Implementation Committee
after evaluation of the information provided might wish to request additional information on certain
elements, such as:
(a) The political commitment on the phase-out plan for ozone-depleting substances by Ukraine;
(b) The necessary linkages between the sectoral approach outlined by Ukraine in its submission and the
specific requirements for the financial, institutional and administrative arrangements towards the
implementation of such measures;
trade regulations;
6. To note that Ukraine has agreed not to export any virgin, recycled or recovered substance controlled
under the Montreal Protocol to any Party operating under Article 2 of the Protocol not member of the
Commonwealth of Independent States and that such Parties shall not import such controlled substances
from Ukraine;
7. To recommend international assistance to enable compliance of Ukraine with the Montreal Protocol in
line with the following provisions:
(b) Ukraine shall submit annual reports on ODS phase-out progress in line with the schedule included in
the country programme for the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances in Ukraine;
(c) The reports shall be submitted in due time to enable the Ozone Secretariat – together with the
461
(d) In case of any questions related to the reporting requirements and the actions of Ukraine, the
disbursement of the international assistance should be contingent on the settlement of those
problems with the Implementation Committee.
Decision X/27: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ukraine
1. To note that Ukraine ratified the London Amendment on 6 February 1997. The country is classified as a
non-Article 5 Party under the Protocol and, for 1996, reported positive consumption of 1,470 ODP tonnes
of Annex A and B controlled substances, none of which was for essential uses exempted by the Parties.
As a consequence, in 1996, Ukraine was in non-compliancewith its control obligations under Articles 2A
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
through 2E of the Montreal Protocol. Ukraine also expresses a belief that this situation will continue
Parties until such time as Ukraine comes into compliance;
2. To express great concern about the non-compliance of Ukraine, as well as the significant increase in
consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Ukraine from 1995 to 1996, when total consumption
doubled from 767 to 1,470 ODP tonnes. The Parties note the commendable actions taken by Ukraine in
working with customs and industry to monitor imports and improve the accuracy of the data reported to
the Ozone Secretariat. After reviewing Ukraine’s submission to the Implementation Committee, the
Parties note that the Ukraine, through its acceptance of this decision, specifically commits:
– To a phase-out of the consumption of Annex A and B substances by 1 January 2002 (save for
essential uses authorized by the Parties);
Ukraine notes, however, that there may be difficulty in phasing out consumption in the domestic
refrigeration sector;
3. To urge Ukraine to work with relevant Implementing Agencies to shift current consumption to non-
ozone-depleting alternatives, and to quickly develop a plan for managing existing supplies of CFCs as
well as training in the refrigeration sector to encourage recovery and recycling. The Parties note that these
actions are made all the more urgent due to the expected closure of CFC and halon-2402 production
capacity in its major source (Russian Federation) by the year 2000, and the very limited international
availability of halon-2402 from other sources. Noting Ukraine’s obvious commitment to the Montreal
Protocol, it is hopeful that the country will be able to achieve a total phase-out of Annex A and B
substances by 1 January 2002. In so stating, the Parties noted but specifically rejected a request by
Ukraine to allow for continuous imports until 2010 for servicing existing refrigeration equipment. The
Parties, in so doing, note that achieving a phase-out by 1 January 2002 may necessitate that Ukraine
increase the recovery of existing ozone-depleting substances or the import of recycled material, and urge
Ukraine to plan carefully for its future refrigerant servicing needs and invite the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel to help in this endeavour;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Ukraine with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances,
that Ukraine submit a complete copy of its country programme, and subsequent updates, if any, to the
Ozone Secretariat. To the degree that Ukraine is working towards and meeting the specific time-based
consumption, Ukraine should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In
this regard, Ukraine should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these
meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution
Ukraine, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country
462
Decision XXIV/18: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ukraine
Noting that Ukraine ratified the Montreal Protocol on 20 September 1988, the London Amendment on 6
February 1997, the Copenhagen Amendment on 4 April 2002 and the Montreal and Beijing amendments on 4
May 2007 and is classified as a party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting also that the Global Environment Facility has approved funding in the amount of $26,777,501 to
facilitate Ukraine’s compliance with its Montreal Protocol obligations,
MP DECISIONS
Noting further the consultations between the Implementation Committee and representatives of Ukraine
ARTICLE 8
regarding that party’s non-compliance with its Protocol obligations,
Acknowledging with appreciation Ukraine’s significant efforts to return to compliance with the Montreal
Protocol,
1. That Ukraine's reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex C, group I
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs) of 86.9 ODP-tonnes for 2010 and 93.3 for 2011 exceeds the
party’s maximum allowable consumption of 41.1 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for those
years and that the party was therefore in non-compliance with the consumption control measures under
the Montreal Protocol for HCFCs in 2010 and 2011;
2. To record with appreciation the submission by Ukraine of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to
compliance with the Protocol’s HCFC control measures, under which, without prejudice to the operation
of the Global Environment Facility, Ukraine specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing its HCFC consumption to no greater than:
(iii) 16.42 ODP-tonnes in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019;
(iv) Zero by 1 January 2020, save for consumption restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and
air-conditioning equipment between the period 2020 and 2030 as prescribed in the Protocol;
(b) To implementing its system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances and a
quota system for such imports and exports, and to making it operational;
(c) To introducing as soon as possible a gradual ban on imports of equipment containing or relying on
ozone-depleting substances and to monitoring its operation once introduced;
(d) To pursuing the passage of new legislation to more closely control ozone-depleting substances;
3. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above should enable Ukraine to return to compliance with
the Protocol’s HCFC control measures in 2015, and to urge the party to work with the relevant
implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to phase out its consumption of HCFCs;
4. To monitor closely the progress of Ukraine with regard to the implementation of each of the parts of its
plan of action to phase out HCFCs, as outlined in paragraph 2 above. To the degree that the party is
working toward and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the
same manner as a party in good standing. In that regard, Ukraine should continue to receive international
measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance;
463
5. To caution Ukraine in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance that, in the event that it fails to return to compliance,
the parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those
of the HCFCs that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting parties are not
Decisions on non-compliance: Uruguay
Decision XV/44: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Uruguay

MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 8
1. To note that Uruguay ratified the Montreal Protocol on 8 January 1991, the London Amendment on
16 November 1993, the Copenhagen Amendment on 3 July 1997, the Montreal Amendment on
16 February 2000 and the Beijing Amendment on 9 September 2003. The country is classified as a Party
operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the
Executive Committee in 1993. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has
approved $4,856,042 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of
the Protocol;
2. To note also that Uruguay’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E is 11.2 ODP-tonnes. It
reported consumption of 17.7 ODP-tonnes for the controlled substance in Annex E in 2002. As a
consequence, for 2002 Uruguay was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the
Montreal Protocol;
3. To note with appreciation Uruguay’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to
under the plan, Uruguay specifically commits itself:
(iii) To phasing out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2005, as provided in the plan for
(b) To monitoring its system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas;
4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Uruguay to return to compliance by
2004, and to urge Uruguay to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of
5. To monitor closely the progress of Uruguay with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that Uruguay is working towards and meeting the specific
standing. In that regard, Uruguay should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
caution Uruguay, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails
to return to compliance in a timely manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is
464
Decision XVII/39: Revised plan of action for the early phase-out of methyl bromide in Uruguay
1. To note that Uruguay ratified the Montreal Protocol on 8 January 1991, the London Amendment on 16
November 1993, the Copenhagen Amendment on 3 July 1997, the Montreal Amendment on 16 February
2000 and the Beijing Amendment on 9 September 2003. The country is classified as a Party operating
Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1993. Since
approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $5,457,124 from the
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
2. To recall that Uruguay’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) is 11.2 ODP-
tonnes. It reported consumption of 17.7 ODP-tonnes of methyl bromide in 2002. As a consequence, for
2002 Uruguay was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To recall further that Uruguay had submitted a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance
with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures, which was contained in decision XV/44 of the
Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties;
4. To note that Uruguay reported consumption of 11.1 ODP-tonnes of methyl bromide in 2004. This level of
consumption, while consistent with the requirement that Parties operating under Article 5 of the Protocol
freeze their methyl bromide consumption in 2004 at their baseline level, was inconsistent with the Party’s
commitment contained in decision XV/44 to reduce its methyl bromide consumption to a level no greater
that 4 ODP-tonnes in 2004;
5. To note with appreciation, however, that Uruguay submitted a revised plan of action for methyl bromide
early phase-out in controlled uses, and to note, without prejudice to the operation of the financial
mechanism of the Protocol, that under the revised plan Uruguay specifically commits itself:
(vii) To phase out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2013, save for critical uses that may
be authorized by the Parties;
quotas;
6. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 5 above should enable Uruguay to maintain compliance and
to urge Uruguay to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and
phase out consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide);
7. To monitor closely the progress of Uruguay with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that Uruguay is working towards and meeting the specific
standing. In that regard, Uruguay should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
465
caution Uruguay, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it
fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C
Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide that is the substance that is the subject of
non-compliance is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-
compliance.
Decisions on non-compliance: Uzbekistan
Decision X/28: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Uzbekistan

MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 8
1. To note that Uzbekistan ratified the Montreal Protocol on 18 May 1993, and ratified the London and
Copenhagen Amendments on 10 June 1998. The country is classified as a non-Article 5 Party under the
Protocol and, for 1996, reported positive consumption of 272 ODP tonnes of Annex A and Annex B
substances, none of which was for essential uses exempted by the Parties. As a consequence, in 1996,
Uzbekistan was in non-compliance with its obligations under Articles 2A through 2E of the Montreal
Protocol. Uzbekistan also expresses a belief that this situation may continue through at least the year
2001, necessitating annual review by the Implementation Committee and the Parties until such time as
Uzbekistan comes into compliance;
2. To note with appreciation the fact that Uzbekistan has made significant strides in coming into compliance
with the Montreal Protocol, decreasing consumption steadily from an estimated 1,300 tonnes in 1992 to
275 tonnes in 1996. Its country programme shows its determination and commitment to phase out of
Annex A and B substances by 2002. Specifically, the Parties note that the Uzbekistan country programme
includes a commitment:
– To reduce consumption of CFCs by 40% by 2000, by 80% by 2001, and completely by 2002;
– To reduce consumption of carbon tetrachloride by 35% by 2000, by 67% by 2001, and completely
by 2002;
– To reduce consumption of methyl chloroform by 40% in 2000, by 82% in 2001, and completely in
2002;
– To put in place in 1999, import quotas in order to freeze the imports at the current level and to
support the phase-out schedule noted above;
– To put in place by 1999, bans on imports of ODS and equipment using and containing ODS;
– To put in place policy instruments and regulatory requirements to ensure progress in achieving the
phase-out;
3. To note that, given the fact that virtually all of its remaining use is in the refrigeration-servicing sector,
Uzbekistan will have to work very hard in the coming years to ensure that it maintains a downward
momentum in consumption in order to ensure that it meets its commitment for a phase-out in Annex A
and B substances by the year 2002. In this regard, the Tenth Meeting of the Parties is happy to see that
Uzbekistan intends to focus its efforts towards training in the refrigeration sector, and refrigerant recovery
and recycling. The Parties also note that it is critical that Uzbekistan put in place its licensing and quota
system to control the import of ozone-depleting substances no later than September 1999 to meet its
reduction commitment;
4. To closely monitor the progress of Uzbekistan with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting
substances, particularly towards meeting the specific commitments noted above. In this regard, the Parties
request that Uzbekistan submit a complete copy of its country programme, and subsequent updates, if
any, to the Ozone Secretariat. To the degree that Uzbekistan is working towards and meeting the specific
time-based commitments noted above and continues to report data annually demonstrating a decrease in
imports and consumption, Uzbekistan should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good
standing. In this regard, Uzbekistan should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
466
these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a
meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution
Uzbekistan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country
Decisions on non-compliance: Vanuatu
MP DECISIONS
Decision XXI/26: Non-compliance in 2007 and 2008 with the control measures of the Montreal
ARTICLE 8
Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A group I (CFCs), by
Vanuatu and request for a plan of action
Noting that Vanuatu ratified the Montreal Protocol, and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 21
November 1994, and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting also that the Executive Committee has approved $88,020 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Vanuatu’s
compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol,
1. That Vanuatu has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I
(chlorofluorocarbons), for 2007 of 0.3 ODP-tonnes and for 2008 of 0.7 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the
Party’s maximum allowable consumption of zero ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for those
years, and that the Party is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for those substances
under the Protocol for those years;
2. To request Vanuatu to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March 2010,
for consideration by the Implementation Committee at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-
3. To monitor closely the progress of Vanuatu with regard to the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons. To the
continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Vanuatu should
non-compliance;
4. To caution Vanuatu, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it
fails to return to compliance in a timely manner the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures
actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of the chlorofluorocarbons that are the
of non-compliance.
Decision XXII/18: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Vanuatu
Noting that Vanuatu ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 21
November 1994 and is classified as a party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Protocol has approved 120,520 United States dollars from the Multilateral Fund and additional assistance
through projects approved for the Pacific Island countries, of which Vanuatu is an integral part, to enable
467
Vanuatu’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol, and that Vanuatu had its country
programme approved by the Executive Committee in March 2002,
Noting further that Vanuatu reported annual consumption of the controlled substances listed in Annex A, group I
(chlorofluorocarbons), of 0.3 ODP-tonnes for 2007 and 0.7 ODP-tonnes for 2008, which exceeded the party’s
maximum allowable consumption of zero ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for those years, and that
the party is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for those substances under the Protocol for
those years,
1. To note with appreciation Vanuatu’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to
MP DECISIONS
the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Vanuatu specifically commits itself:
ARTICLE 8
(a) To reducing its consumption of chlorofluorocarbons to no greater than zero ODP-tonnes in 2010,
save for essential uses that may be authorized by the parties;
(b) To monitoring its import licensing system for ozone-depleting substances;
2. To urge Vanuatu to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to
3. To monitor closely the progress of Vanuatu with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and
the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons. To the degree that the party is working towards and meeting the
specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a party in good
standing. In that regard, Vanuatu should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet
those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by the
4. To caution Vanuatu, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by the
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that, in the event that Vanuatu fails to return to
supply of chlorofluorocarbons that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting parties
Decisions on non-compliance: Viet Nam
Decision XV/45: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Viet Nam
1. To note that Viet Nam ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on
26 January 1994. Viet Nam is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol
country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $3,150,436 from the Multilateral Fund to
2. To note also that Viet Nam’s baseline for Annex A, group II substances is 37.07 ODP-tonnes. It reported
consumption of 97.60 ODP-tonnes for Annex A, group II substances in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002
Viet Nam was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2B of the Montreal Protocol;
3. To request Viet Nam to submit to the Implementation Committee, for consideration at its next meeting, a
plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Viet Nam may
wish to consider including in that plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at
baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS-using equipment, and policy
and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
468
4. To note that Viet Nam may also wish to draw upon the ongoing assistance provided by the United
Nations Environment Programme Compliance Assistance Programme and the halon phase-out assistance
previously provided by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, and to consult with the
Halons Technical Options Committee of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, to identify
and introduce alternatives to the use of halon-2402 on oil vessels and platforms;
5. To monitor closely the progress of Viet Nam with regard to the phase-out of halons. To the degree that
Viet Nam is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be
treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Viet Nam should continue to
MP DECISIONS
Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Viet Nam, in accordance with item B of the
ARTICLE 8
indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the
may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of halons
(that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a
Decisions on non-compliance: groups of Parties
Decision XIII/16: Potential non-compliance with the freeze on CFC consumption in Article 5
Parties in the control period 1999-2000
1. To note that, in accordance with decision X/29 of the 10th Meeting of the Parties, the Implementation
Committee requested the Secretariat to write to the following Article 5 Parties, Bangladesh, Chad,
Comoros, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Kenya, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Papua
New Guinea, Paraguay, Samoa and Solomon Islands, that had reported data on CFC consumption for
either the year 1999 and/or 2000 that was above their individual baselines;
2. That since none of the above Parties has responded to the request from the Secretariat for data for the
control period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, all are presumed to be in non-compliance with the
control measures under the Protocol in the absence of further clarification;
3. To closely monitor the progress of these Parties with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting
substances. To the degree that these Parties are working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
control measures, they should continue to be treated in the same manner as Parties in good standing. In
this regard, these Parties should continue to receive international assistance to enable them to meet these
these Parties, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that any
country fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent
with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions
available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance)
is ceased and that importing Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
Decision XIV/17: Potential non-compliance with the freeze on CFC consumption by Parties
operating under Article 5 for the control period July 2000 to June 2001
1. To note that, pursuant to decision X/29 of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties, the Implementation
Committee requested the Secretariat to write to those Parties operating under Article 5 that had reported
data on CFC consumption for either the year 2000 and/or 2001 that was above their individual baselines;
2. To note that Guatemala, Malta, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea have failed to report data for the control
period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, and have reported annual data for either 2000 or 2001 which is
469
above their baseline. In the absence of further clarification, these Parties are presumed to be in non-
compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;
3. To urge these Parties to report data for the control period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 as a matter of
urgency;
4. To closely monitor the progress of these Parties with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting
substances. To the degree that these Parties are working towards and meeting the specific Protocol
control measures, they should continue to be treated in the same manner as Parties in good standing. In
this regard, these Parties should continue to receive international assistance to enable them to meet their
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
these Parties, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that any Party
fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item
C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under
Decision XIV/28: Non-compliance with consumption phase-out by Parties not operating under
Article 5 in 2000
1. To note that Belarus and Latvia have reported data on consumption of substances in Annex A or B to the
Montreal Protocol in 2000 that places them in non-compliance with the national plans negotiated with the
Parties and stated in Decisions X/21 and X/24 respectively;
2. To strongly request these Parties to provide the Implementation Committee, through the Secretariat, with
explanations for their non-compliance, based on the data reported under Article 7 of the Protocol, as a
matter of urgency;
3. To request the Implementation Committee to review the situation with regard to the phase-out of ozone-
depleting substances in these Parties at its next meeting, and report to the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XV/21: Potential non-compliance with consumption of Annex A, group I, ozone-

depleting substances (CFCs) by Article 5 Parties for the control period 1 July 2001-
31 December 2002, and requests for plans of action
1. To note that the following Article 5 Parties have failed to report data for consumption of Annex A,
group I, substances for the control period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, and have reported
annual data for 2001 and/or 2002 which are above their requirement for a freeze in consumption:
Dominica, Haiti, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Sierra Leone. In the absence of further clarification, those
Parties are presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;
2. To urge those Parties to report data for Annex A, group I, substances for the control period from
1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 as a matter of urgency and, in addition, for consideration at the next
meeting of the Implementation Committee, explanations for their excess consumption, together with
plans of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Those Parties
may wish to consider including in their plans of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze
imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS-using equipment,
3. To note also, however, the special situation of Haiti, which has only recently ratified the Montreal
Protocol and begun to implement its refrigerant management plan;
470
4. To monitor closely the progress of those Parties with regard to the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that
those Parties are working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, they should
continue to be treated in the same manner as Parties in good standing. In that regard, those Parties should
continue to receive international assistance to enable them to meet their commitments in accordance with
compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution those Parties, in accordance with
item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that any Party fails to return to compliance in a
timely manner, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
Decision XV/22: Potential non-compliance with consumption of Annex A, group II, ozone-
depleting substances (halons) by Article 5 Parties in 2002, and requests for plans of action
1. To note that the following Article 5 Parties have reported annual data for Annex A, group II substances
for 2002 which are above their requirement for a freeze in consumption: Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria and
Pakistan. In the absence of further clarification, those Parties are presumed to be in non-compliance with
the control measures under the Protocol;
2. To request those Parties to submit to the Implementation Committee, as a matter of urgency, for
consideration at its next meeting, an explanation for their excess consumption, together with plans of
action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Those Parties may wish to
consider including in their plans of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline
levels and support the phase-out schedule; policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in
achieving the phase-out; and work with implementing agencies to identify alternatives to Annex A,
group II, substances;
3. To monitor closely the progress of those Parties with regard to the phase-out of halons. To the degree that
those Parties are working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, they should
continue to be treated in the same manner as Parties in good standing. In that regard, those Parties should
continue to receive international assistance to enable them to meet their commitments in accordance with
compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution those Parties, in accordance with
item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that any Party fails to return to compliance in a
timely manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.
supply of halons (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not
Decision XV/24: Potential non-compliance with consumption of the controlled substance in

Annex E (methyl bromide) by non-Article 5 Parties in 2002, and requests for plans of action
1. To note that Latvia has reported annual data for 2001 which are above its requirement for a 50 per cent
reduction in consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E, therefore placing Latvia in non-
compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol for 2001;
2. To note also, however, that Latvia had provided an explanation for its non-compliance and has
subsequently reported Annex E data for 2002 that indicate its return to compliance;
3. To note that Israel has reported annual data for 2002 which are above its requirement for a 50 per cent
reduction in consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E. In the absence of further clarification,
Israel is presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;
471
4. To request Israel to submit to the Implementation Committee, as a matter of urgency, for consideration at
its next meeting, an explanation for its excess consumption, together with a plan of action with time-
specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Israel may wish to consider including in its
plan of action the establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out schedule, and policy and
5. To monitor closely the progress of Israel with regard to the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree
that Israel is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be
treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. Through the present decision, however, the
Parties caution Israel, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a
Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance
MP DECISIONS
in a timely manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of
ARTICLE 8
ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that
Decision XV/25: Potential non-compliance with consumption of the ozone-depleting substance

in Annex E (methyl bromide) by Article 5 Parties in 2002, and requests for plans of action
1. To note that the following Article 5 Parties have reported annual data for the controlled substance in
Annex E for 2002 which are above their requirement for a freeze in consumption: Barbados, Egypt,
Paraguay, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Thailand. In the absence of further clarification, those
Parties are presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;
2. To request those Parties to submit to the Implementation Committee as a matter of urgency, for
consideration at its next meeting, an explanation for their excess consumption, together with plans of
action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Those Parties may wish to
levels and support the phase-out schedule, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress
3. To monitor closely the progress of those Parties with regard to the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the
degree that those Parties are working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, they
should continue to be treated in the same manner as Parties in good standing. In that regard, those Parties
should continue to receive international assistance to enable them to meet their commitments in
respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution those Parties, in
accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that any Party fails to return to
compliance in a timely manner the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative
ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide (that is, the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that
Decision XVI/20: Potential non-compliance in 2003 with consumption of the controlled

substance in Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform) by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5, and requests for plans of action
1. To note that the following Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol have
reported annual data for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform), for 2003
which is above their requirement for a freeze in consumption: Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Ecuador and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the absence of further clarification, those Parties are
presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol. To note, however, that
the Islamic Republic of Iran has submitted a request for a change in its baseline data for methyl
chloroform that will be considered by the Implementation Committee at its next meeting;
472
2. To request those Parties, as a matter of urgency, to submit to the Implementation Committee for
consideration at its next meeting explanations for their excess consumption, together with plans of action
with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Those Parties may wish to
levels and support the phase-out schedule, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress
3. To monitor closely the progress of those Parties with regard to the phase-out of methyl chloroform. To
the degree that those Parties are working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures,
they should continue to be treated in the same manner as Parties in good standing. In that regard, those
Parties should continue to receive international assistance to enable them to meet their commitments in
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 8
those Parties, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that any Party
fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures
actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl chloroform (that is, the
473

information
[Also see Article 7, ‘Decisions on compliance with data-reporting requirements: general’ for references to
reporting requirements under Article 9.]
Decision I/4: Workplans required by Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/4 to consider the following elements as the first components
for the workplans required by Articles 9 and 10 [note: this refers to the original Article 10 of the Protocol, on
technical assistance] of the Protocol:
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 9
(a) dissemination of the reports of the panels for scientific, environmental, technical, and economic
assessments, as well as the synthesis report, and their follow-up;
(b) regular updating of the panel reports, taking into account in particular the developments in the fields of
production of environmentally sound substitutes or alternative technological solutions to the use of CFCs
or halons;
(c) development of a programme, which will include workshops, demonstration projects, training courses,
the exchange of experts and the provision of consultants on control options, taking into account the
special needs of developing countries, for the consideration by the Parties at their second meeting;
(d) preparation of a study of retrofit technologies applicable to existing manufacturing facilities that produce
controlled substances or products made with or containing such substances, to be presented to the Parties
for their consideration at their Second Meeting;
(e) facilitation of the production and wide dissemination of material for public information;
(f) exploration of specific ways of promoting exchange and transfer of environmentally sound substitutes
and alternative technologies;
(g) initiatives to support activities in programmes of international organizations and financing agencies that
could contribute towards implementing the provisions of the Protocol, and defining means by which the
Secretariat can initiate concrete contacts with the appropriate international organizations, programmes
and financing agencies for this purpose.
Decision II/14: Workplans required by Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/14 to request the Executive Committee under the Financial
Mechanism and the Secretariat to take into account in their work the recommendations on workplans required by
Article 9 and Article 10 [note: this refers to the original Article 10 of the Protocol, on technical assistance] of
the Protocol, as adopted by the third session of the first meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the
Parties to the Protocol.
Decision XVII/24: Reports of the Parties submitted under Article 9 of the Montreal Protocol on
research, development, public awareness and exchange of information
1. To note with appreciation the reports submitted by the following 28 Parties in accordance with Article 9
of the Montreal Protocol: Argentina, Belarus, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Dominican Republic, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Jordan, Latvia, Mauritius, Malaysia, Monaco, Norway,
Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and
Tobago, Turkmenistan;
2. To recall that paragraph 3 of Article 9 states that, every two years, each Party shall submit to the
Secretariat a summary of activities it has conducted pursuant to that Article, and that relevant activities
474
include promotion of research and development, information exchange on technologies for reducing
emissions of ozone-depleting substances, alternatives to the use of controlled substances and the costs and
benefits of relevant control strategies, awareness-raising on the environmental effects of controlled
substances emissions and other substances that deplete the ozone layer;
3. To recognize that information relevant to the reporting obligation contained in paragraph 3 of Article 9
may be generated through cooperative efforts undertaken in the context of regional ozone networks,
ozone research managers activities under Article 3 of the Vienna Convention, participation by Parties in
the assessment work of both the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Scientific
Assessment Panel under Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol, and national public awareness-raising
initiatives;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 9
4. To note that the reporting under Article 9, paragraph 3, could be undertaken through electronic means,
and to note also that the information contained in these reports could be shared through the Ozone
Secretariat’s website;
5. To note that such activities continue to play an important role in global efforts to protect the ozone layer
and that dissemination of information on such activities, through Article 9, also contributes to these
efforts;
6. To therefore urge all Parties to submit information in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 9.
Decision XX/13: Reports of Parties submitted under Article 9 of the Montreal Protocol
1. To note with appreciation the reports submitted in 2007 and 2008 by the following 18 Parties in
accordance with Article 9 of the Montreal Protocol: Argentina, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa
Rica, Cyprus, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Oman, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden,
Thailand, Uganda and Zambia;
2. To recall that paragraph 3 of Article 9 states that, every two years after entry into force of the Montreal
Protocol, which entered into force in 1989, each Party shall submit to the Secretariat a summary of
activities that it has conducted pursuant to that Article and that relevant activities include promotion of
research and development, information exchange on technologies for reducing emissions of ozone-
depleting substances, alternatives to the use of controlled substances and the costs and benefits of relevant
control strategies and raising awareness of the environmental effects of emissions of controlled and other
substances that deplete the ozone layer;
3. To recognize that information relevant to the reporting obligation under paragraph 3 of Article 9 may be
generated through cooperative efforts undertaken in the context of regional ozone networks, activities by
ozone research managers under Article 3 of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer,
participation by Parties in the assessment work of both the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
and the Scientific Assessment Panel under Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol and national public
awareness-raising initiatives;
4. To note that the reporting under paragraph 3 of Article 9 of the Protocol can be undertaken through
electronic means;
5. To request the Secretariat to share the information reported under paragraph 3 of Article 9 of the Protocol
with other Parties through the Secretariat’s website.
475
Decisions on establishment of interim financial mechanism
Decision I/13: Assistance to developing countries
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/13 with regard to assistance to developing countries:
(a) to recognize the urgent need to establish international financial and other mechanisms to implement
Article 5, paragraphs 2 and 3, in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Montreal Protocol and to
enable developing countries to meet the requirements of the present and a future strengthened Protocol,
MP DECISIONS
thereby addressing the ozone depletion and related problems.

ARTICLE 10
(b) to establish an open-ended working group of the Contracting Parties to develop modalities for such
mechanisms, including adequate international funding mechanisms which do not exclude the possibility
of an international Fund and to report the results of their deliberations to the Conference of the Parties at
its Second Meeting in 1990.
Decision II/8: Financial mechanism
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/8 to establish for the three-year period from 1 January
1991 to 31 December 1993 or until such time as the Financial Mechanism is established, an Interim Financial
Mechanism according to the following:
1. The Interim Financial Mechanism is established for the purposes of providing financial and technical co-
operation, including the transfer of technologies, to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Montreal Protocol to enable their compliance with the control measures set out in Articles 2A to 2E of the
Protocol. The mechanism, contributions to which shall be additional to other financial transfers to Parties
operating under that paragraph, shall meet all agreed incremental costs of such Parties, in order to enable
their compliance with the control measures of the Protocol.
2. The Mechanism established under paragraph 1 shall include a Multilateral Fund. It may also include other
means of multilateral, regional and bilateral co-operation.
(a) meet, on a grant or concessional basis as appropriate, and according to criteria to be decided upon by
the Parties, the agreed incremental costs;
(b) finance clearing-house functions to:
(i) assist Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, through country-specific studies and
other technical co-operation to identify their needs for co-operation;
(ii) facilitate technical co-operation to meet these identified needs;
(iii) distribute, as provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol, information and relevant materials, and
hold workshops, training sessions and other related activities for the benefit of Parties that are
developing countries;
(iv) facilitate and monitor other multilateral, regional and bilateral co-operation available to Parties
that are developing countries; and
(c) finance the secretarial services of the Multilateral Fund and related support costs.
policies.
476
5. The President of the Second Meeting of the Parties shall ensure that the Executive Committee establishes,
with effect from 1 January 1991, an “Interim Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal
Protocol” and draws up the financial regulations and rules of the Fund.
6. The Parties hereby establish an Executive Committee to develop and monitor the implementation of
resources for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the Multilateral Fund. It is established for a three-
year period. Before the end of that three-year period, the terms of reference of the Executive Committee
shall be reviewed by the meeting of the Parties. The Executive Committee shall discharge its tasks and
responsibilities specified in its terms of reference as agreed by the Parties, with the co-operation and
assistance of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), the United
Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, or other appropriate
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
agencies depending on their respective areas of expertise. The members of the Executive Committee,
which shall be selected on the basis of a balanced representation of the Parties operating under paragraph
1 of Article 5 and of the Parties not so operating shall be endorsed by the Parties. The terms of reference
of the Executive Committee are attached as Appendix II to this decision.
7. The Multilateral Fund shall be financed by contributions from Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 in convertible currency or, in certain circumstances, in kind and/or in national currency, on the
basis of the United Nations scale of assessments. Contributions by other Parties shall be encouraged.
Bilateral and, in particular cases agreed by a decision of the Parties, regional co-operation may, up to
twenty per cent and consistent with any criteria specified by decision of the Parties, be considered as a
contribution to the Multilateral Fund, provided that such co-operation as a minimum:
(a) strictly relates to compliance with the provisions of the Protocol;
(b) provides additional resources; and
(c) meets agreed incremental costs.
8. The Parties shall decide upon the programme budget of the Multilateral Fund for each fiscal period and
upon the percentage of contributions of the individual Parties thereto.
9. Resources under the Multilateral Fund shall be disbursed with the concurrence of the beneficiary Party.
10. Decisions by the Parties under this decision shall be taken by consensus whenever possible. If all efforts
at consensus have been exhausted and no agreement reached, decisions shall be adopted by a two-thirds
majority vote of the Parties present and voting, representing at least a majority of the Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 present and voting and at least a majority of the Parties not so operating
present and voting.
11. The Financial Mechanism set out in this decision is without prejudice to any future arrangements that
may be developed with respect to other environmental issues.
12. References to dollars ($) in this decision are to United States dollars.
Decision II/8A: Budget for the Fund Secretariat
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/8A to adopt the provisional budget for the Fund Secretariat
as attached in Annex V of the report on the work of the Second Meeting of the Parties and to request the
Executive Committee of the Parties to present to the Third Meeting of the Parties a revised version of the budget
in the light of the experience gained during its implementation.
Decision II/8B: Acceptance of the offer of Canada
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/8B to accept the offer of Canada:
(a) to host the Executive Committee meetings as necessary during the interim period;
(b) to support participation of developing countries in those meetings; and
477
(c) to assume the administrative costs of those initiatives.
Decision III/19: Financial mechanism
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/19 with regard to financial mechanism to request the Open-
ended Working Group of the Parties to review the indicative list of the categories of incremental costs adopted
by the Parties in Decision II/8 and, taking into account the experience gained by the Executive Committee, to
develop an indicative list of categories of incremental costs required by paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the
Montreal Protocol as amended by the Second Meeting of the Parties. The list so developed should be submitted
for consideration by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties.
Decisions on establishment of financial mechanism

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
Decision IV/18: Financial mechanism
1. to establish the Financial Mechanism, including the Multilateral Fund provided for in Article 10 of the
Montreal Protocol as amended at the Second Meeting of the Parties;
2. to make the Multilateral Fund operative from 1 January 1993 and to transfer to it any resources remaining
in the Interim Multilateral Fund on that date;
3. to set the total contributions to the Fund for 1993 at $US 113.34 million and to commit to a replenishment
of the Fund in order to meet on grant or concessional terms the requirements of Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, in respect of agreed incremental costs as indicated by the figures
$US 340–500 million for 1994–1996. The total contribution to the Fund for 1994 will not be less than the
commitments for 1993;
4. to establish the Executive Committee;
5. to adopt the terms of reference for the Multilateral Fund and for the Executive Committee, as set out in
Annex IX and Annex X, respectively, to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties; [see Section 3.7
of this Handbook]
6. to endorse the recommendations of the Executive Committee contained in paragraph 108 of

UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/8/29 and to approve the indicative list of the categories of incremental costs, as
set out in Annex VIII to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties, in accordance with paragraph 1 of
Article 10 of the amended Protocol; [see Section 3.6 of this Handbook]
7. to call on the Executive Committee to continue to operate under the agreements, procedures and
guidelines applicable to the Interim Multilateral Fund;
8. to accept with appreciation the offer of Canada to host the Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund on the
same terms as they hosted the Secretariat of the Interim Multilateral Fund and to locate the Secretariat at
Montreal, Canada;
II
1. to request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal
Protocol, in the light of its terms of reference, and drawing on the various reports and assessments it has
at its disposal, and with the cooperation and assistance of the implementing agencies, and independent
advice as appropriate or necessary, to submit to the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties at its next
meeting a report comprising:
(a) A report on the operation of the Financial Mechanism since 1 January 1991;
478
(b) Its three-year plan and budget (as required by paragraph 10 (b) of its terms of reference) based on:
(i) The needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;
(ii) The capacity and performance of the implementing agencies; and
(iii) The strategies and projects to be implemented by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
2. to request the Open-ended Working Group to assess the report of the Executive Committee and to make
recommendations, as appropriate, to the Fifth Meeting of the Parties;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
3. to request the Open-ended Working Group to make a recommendation to the Fifth Meeting of the Parties
on the level of replenishment for the Multilateral Fund for the period 1994–1996, in the light of:
(a) Decisions made by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties on this issue;
(b) The report prepared by the Executive Committee;
(c) Other assessments on the level of resources needed for the period 1994–1996 available to the Open-
ended Working Group;
(d) The status of commitments and disbursements of the Financial Mechanism;
4. to evaluate and review, by 1995, the Financial Mechanism established by Article 10 of the Protocol and
section I of the present decision, with a view to ensuring its continued effectiveness, taking into account
chapters 9, 33 and 34, and all other relevant chapters, of Agenda 21 as adopted by the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.
Decision VI/16: Juridical personality, privileges and immunities of the Multilateral Fund
The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/16, recalling decision IV/18 of the Fourth Meeting of the
Parties, which established the Financial Mechanism, including the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of
the Montreal Protocol, provided for in Article 10 of the Montreal Protocol, as amended in London on
29 June 1990, to clarify the nature and legal status of the Fund as a body under international law as follows:
(a) Juridical personality: The Multilateral Fund shall enjoy such legal capacity as is necessary for the
exercise of its functions and the protection of its interests, in particular the capacity to enter into contracts,
to acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property and to institute legal proceedings in defence
of its interests;
(b) Privileges and immunities:
(i) The Fund shall, in accordance with arrangements to be determined with the Government of Canada,
enjoy in the territory of the host country, such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the
fulfilment of its purposes;
(ii) The officials of the Fund Secretariat shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are
necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the Multilateral Fund.
Decisions on replenishments of the Multilateral Fund, budgets and contributions
Decision III/22: Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/22 with respect to the Executive Committee of the
Multilateral Fund:
(a) to adopt the revised 1991 budget for the Fund Secretariat;
479
(c) to adopt the budget for 1992, included in the three-year budget for the Fund Secretariat;
(d) to endorse the proposal to raise the total amount of the Interim Multilateral Fund by US$40 million to
US$200 million over the three-year period 1991–1993;
(e) to adopt a revised scale of contributions set out in Annex X to the report of the Third Meeting of the
Parties.
[The remainder of this Decision is located below under ‘Decisions on the Executive Committee’]
Decision IV/20: Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
1. to adopt the revised budgets for 1992 and 1993, and the budget for 1994 for the Fund Secretariat, as set
out in Annex XIII to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties;
2. to urge all Parties to pay their outstanding contributions promptly and also to pay their future
contributions promptly and in full, in accordance with the formula for contributions as set out in Annex
XIV to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties;
3. to adopt the scale of contributions for the Multilateral Fund as set out in Annex XIV to the report of the
Fourth Meeting of the Parties;
Decision IV/21: Temporary difficulties encountered by Hungary, Bulgaria and Poland
1. to note the formal request that Hungary, Bulgaria and Poland have made for guidance because of the
temporary difficulties they may face in making 1991, 1992 and 1993 contributions in convertible
currency to the Multilateral Fund;
2. to encourage such Parties, with the assistance of the Executive Committee and the Fund Secretariat,
urgently to make every effort to explore and identify possible ways and means of making contributions in
kind;
3. to encourage those Parties, and other Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol
to consider possibilities for addressing the situation in case it is not possible for such contributions to be
made in kind;
4. to request the Executive Committee to report on this matter to the Fifth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision V/9: Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol
1. To adopt the budget for 1994–1996 of US$ 510,000,000 for the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation
of the Montreal Protocol with the understanding that US$ 55,000,000 of that sum will be provided by
funds unallocated during the 1991–1993 period;
2. To urge all Parties to pay their outstanding contributions promptly and also to pay their future
contributions promptly and in full, in accordance with the formula for contributions as set out in Annex II
to the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties;
480
3. To adopt the scale of contributions for the Multilateral Fund based on the replenishment of US$
455,000,000 as set out in Annex II in the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties; US$ 151,666,666 for
1994, US$ 151,666,667 for 1995 and US$ 151,666,667 for 1996.
Decision V/10: Temporary difficulties encountered by Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland and other
countries with economies in transition
The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/10 to note the recommendations of the Executive Committee
with respect to the countries encountering temporary difficulties and to request the Executive Committee to
continue to make its best efforts to consider various possibilities for addressing the situation by obtaining
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
contributions in kind wherever possible and to report on this matter to the Sixth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision VII/24: 1997–1999 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/24 to request the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel to prepare a report for submission to the Eighth Meeting of the Parties, and present it through the
Thirteenth Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, to enable the Parties to take a decision on the
appropriate level of the 1997–1999 replenishment, taking into account amongst other things:
(a) All control measures agreed by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
(b) The Report on the Review under Paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol;
(c) Historical experience, including limitations and successes, of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances
achieved with resources already allocated, as well as the performance of the Multilateral Fund and its
Implementing Agencies;
(d) Special circumstances of low-volume-ODS-consuming countries and small and medium-size enterprises;
(e) Projections included in the 1996 business plan for the Multilateral Fund;
(f) Calculating annual requirements with and without assuming a constant, flat rate of demand (for example,
increased demand in some years);
(g) The November 1995 report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on the economic and
financial implications of possible methyl bromide and hydrochlorofluorocarbon control scenarios for
Parties operating under Article 5;
(h) Relevant decisions of the Seventh Meeting of Parties;
(i) Approved country programmes;
In undertaking this task, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should consult with the Executive
Committee of the Multilateral Fund and other relevant sources of information.
Decision VIII/4: Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund and three-year rolling business plan for
1997–99
1. To note with appreciation the report of the Executive Committee on the three-year rolling business plan
and the report of the TEAP on replenishment;
2. To adopt a budget for 1997–1999 of US$540,000,000 with the understanding that US$74,000,000 of that
sum will be provided by funds unallocated during 1994–1996: this US$74,000,000 figure does not
include sums listed as disputed in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.8/L.2, which appears as annex VIII to the
report of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties;
481
3. The agreed budget figure includes a sum of US$10 million to enable Parties operating under Article 5 to
apply the measures contained in paragraph 2 of decision VII/8 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties and
to assist those Parties to start the implementation of any recommendations that might arise from the Ninth
Meeting of the Parties on this matter;
4. To adopt the scale of contributions for the Multilateral Fund based on a replenishment of
US$466,000,000 as set out in annex I to the report of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties of
US$155,333,333 for 1997, US$155,333,333 for 1998 and US$155,333,333 for 1999;
5. That the Executive Committee should take action to ensure as far as possible that the whole of the budget
for 1997–1999 is committed by the end of 1999, and that Parties not operating under Article 5 should
accordingly make timely payments;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
6. That the Executive Committee should, over the next three years, work toward the goal of reducing agency
support costs from their current level of 13 per cent to an average of below 10 per cent to make more
funds available for other activities. The Executive Committee should report to the Parties annually on
their progress, and the Parties may adjust the goal accordingly;
7. To agree that adjustments to the United Nations scale of assessment should not affect the rates of
contributions of individual Parties during a replenishment period;
8. To agree that contributions of Parties not operating under Article 5 which ratify the London Amendment
during a replenishment cycle should be calculated on a pro-rata basis for the balance of the replenishment
cycle, starting with the date on which the London Amendment entered into force for it. Contributions of
such countries should be considered as additional resources during the replenishment cycle; such Parties
should be formally added to the list of contributors and taken into account in the distribution of
assessments during the next replenishment.
Decision VIII/6: Contributions to the Multilateral Fund
The Eighth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VIII/6 that, with effect from 1997, contributions to the
Multilateral Fund concern only Parties not operating under Article 5 that are Parties to the London Amendment
to the Montreal Protocol.
Decision IX/38: Outstanding contributions to the Multilateral Fund from Parties not operating
under Article 5 that had not ratified the London Amendment
1. To agree to waive the outstanding contributions to the Multilateral Fund specified in annex X of the
report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties as a one-time measure;
2. To agree that the issue of waiving outstanding contributions to the Multilateral Fund assessed before
ratification of the London Amendment by any Party will neither be raised nor will this decision be cited
as a precedent in future.
Decision IX/39: Refund of contributions by Cyprus to the Multilateral Fund
The Ninth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IX/39 that the amount already paid by Cyprus to the
Multilateral Fund should not be refunded.
Decision X/13: Terms of reference for a study on the 2000-2002 replenishment of the
Multilateral Fund
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report for submission to the
Eleventh Meeting of the Parties, and present it through the Open-ended Working Group at its nineteenth
meeting, to enable the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties to take a decision on the appropriate level of the
482
2000-2002 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund. In preparing its report, the Panel should take into
account, inter alia:
(a) All control measures, and relevant decisions, agreed by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,
including decisions agreed by the Tenth Meeting of the Parties, in so far as these will necessitate
expenditure by the Multilateral Fund during the period 2000-2002;
(b) The need to allocate resources to enable all Article 5 Parties to maintain compliance with the
Montreal Protocol;
(c) Agreed rules and guidelines for determining eligibility for funding of investment projects (including
MP DECISIONS
the production sector) and non-investment projects;
ARTICLE 10
(d) Approved country programmes;
(e) Financial commitments in 2000-2002 relating to sectoral phase-out projects agreed by the Executive
Committee;
(f) Experience to date, including limitations and successes of the phase-out of ozone-depleting
substances achieved with the resources already allocated, as well as the performance of the
Multilateral Fund and its Implementing Agencies;
(g) The impact that the controls and country activities are likely to have on the supply and demand for
ozone-depleting substances, and the effect that this will have on the cost of ozone-depleting
substances and the resulting incremental cost of investment projects during the period under
examination;
(h) Administrative costs of the Implementing Agencies, taking into account paragraph 6 of decision
VIII/4, and the cost of financing the secretariat services of the Multilateral Fund, including holding
meetings;
2. That, in undertaking this task, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should consult widely
with relevant persons and institutions and other relevant sources of information deemed useful;
3. That the Panel shall strive to complete its work in time to enable its report to be distributed to all Parties
two months before the nineteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.
Decision XI/7: Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the period 2000-2002
1. To adopt a budget for 2000–2002 of 475,700,000 United States dollars on the understanding that
35,700,000 United States dollars of that sum will be provided by funds not allocated during 1997–1999.
The Parties noted that outstanding contributions from some Parties with economies in transition in the
period 1997–1999 stood at 34,703,856 United States dollars;
2. To adopt the scale of contributions for the Multilateral Fund based on a replenishment of 440,000,000
United States dollars, of 146,666,666 United States dollars for 2000, 146,666,666 United States dollars
for 2001, and 146,666,666 United States dollars for 2002, as it appears in annex VI to the report of the
Eleventh Meeting of the Parties;
3. That the Executive Committee should take action to ensure as far as possible that the whole of the budget
for 2000-2002 is committed by the end of 2002, and that Parties not operating under Article 5 should
make timely payments in accordance with paragraph 7 of decision XI/6.
483
Decision XIII/1: Terms of reference for the study on the 2003-2005 replenishment of the
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report for submission to
the 14th Meeting of the Parties, and present it through the Open-ended Working Group at its
22nd meeting, to enable the 14th Meeting of the Parties to take a decision on the appropriate level of the
2003-2005 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund. In preparing its report, the Panel should take into
account, inter alia:
MP DECISIONS
(a) All control measures, and relevant decisions, agreed by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and the
ARTICLE 10
Executive Committee including decisions agreed by the 13th Meeting of the Parties and the 35th
Meeting of the Executive Committee, in so far as these will necessitate expenditure by the
Multilateral Fund during the period 2003-2005;
(b) The need to allocate resources to enable all Article 5 Parties to maintain compliance with the
Montreal Protocol;
those in the production sector) and non-investment projects;
(e) Financial commitments in 2003-2005 relating to sectoral phase-out projects agreed by the Executive
Committee;
(f) Experience to date, including limitations and successes of the phase-out of ozone-depleting
Multilateral Fund and its implementing agencies;
(g) The impact that the controls and country activities are likely to have on the supply and demand for
ozone-depleting substances, and the effect that this will have on the cost of ozone-depleting
substances and the resulting incremental cost of investment projects during the period under
examination;
(h) Administrative costs of the implementing agencies, taking into account paragraph 6 of
decision VIII/4, and the cost of financing the secretariat services of the Multilateral Fund, including
the holding of meetings;
2. That, in undertaking this task, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should consult widely
with relevant persons and institutions and other relevant sources of information deemed useful;
two months before the 22nd Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.
Decision XIII/2: Ad hoc working group on the 2003-2005 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund
for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
Noting that an ad hoc working group was set up by the 10th Meeting of the Parties to work closely with the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review the study on the 2000-2002 replenishment,
Noting further that the involvement of the ad hoc working group in the course of the study enhanced its
outcome,
To set up an Ad Hoc Working Group on the 2003-2005 replenishment with membership comprising the
following Parties operating under Article 5: Argentina, Brazil (Co-Chair), China, Colombia, India, Islamic
484
Republic of Iran, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zimbabwe; and the following Parties not operating under Article 5:
Australia, Finland (Co-Chair), France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and United States of America. The ad hoc working group will meet following the 22nd
Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group to provide initial feedback to the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel and advice on sensitivity analyses.
Decision XIV/39: The 2003-2005 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund
1. To adopt a budget for 2003-2005 of $573,000,000 on the understanding that $76,000,000 of that sum will
be provided by funds not allocated during 2000-2002, and that $23,000,000 of the same sum will be
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
provided from interest accruing to the Fund and other sources during the 2003-2005 triennium. The
Parties noted that outstanding contributions from some Parties with economies in transition in the period
2000-2002 stood at $10,585,046;
2. To adopt the scale of contributions for the Multilateral Fund based on a replenishment of $ 474,000,000,
of $158,000,000 for 2003, $158,000,000 for 2004, and $158,000,000 for 2005 as it appears in Annex II to
the report of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties;
3. That the Executive Committee should take action to ensure, as far as possible, that the whole of the
budget for 2003-2005 is committed by the end of 2005, and that Parties not operating under Article 5
should make timely payments in accordance with paragraph 7 of Decision XI/6.
Decision XVI/35: Terms of reference for the study on the 2006–2008 replenishment of the
Recalling decisions VII/24, X/13 and XIII/1 on previous terms of reference for a study on the replenishment of
the Multilateral Fund,
Recalling also decisions VIII/4, XI/7 and XIV/39 on previous replenishments of the Multilateral Fund,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report for submission to
the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties, and to present it through the Open-ended Working Group at its
twenty-fifth meeting, to enable the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties to take a decision on the
appropriate level of the 2006–2008 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund. In preparing its report, the
Panel should take into account, among other things:
(a) All control measures, and relevant decisions, agreed by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and the
Executive Committee including decisions agreed by the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties and the
Executive Committee at its forty-fifth meeting, in so far as the decisions will necessitate expenditure
by the Multilateral Fund during the period 2006–2008; in addition, the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel report should include a scenario which indicates costs associated with
implementation by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the adjustment relating to
methyl bromide proposed by the European Community;
(b) The need to allocate resources to enable all Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to
maintain compliance with Articles 2A–2I of the Montreal Protocol;
those in the production sector), non-investment projects and sectoral or national phase-out plans;
(e) Financial commitments in 2006–2008 relating to national or sectoral phase-out plans agreed by the
Executive Committee;
485
(f) The provision of funds for accelerating phase-out and maintaining momentum, taking into account
the time lag in project implementation;
(g) Experience to date, including limitations and successes of the phase-out of ozone-depleting
(h) The current trends in the cost of ozone-depleting substances and the resulting incremental costs of
investment projects during the period under review;
(i) Administrative costs of the implementing agencies and the cost of financing the secretariat services
of the Multilateral Fund, including the holding of meetings;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
2. That, in undertaking this task, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should give due
consideration to the evaluation and review of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol to be
undertaken by the Parties in 2004, pursuant to decision XIII/3;
3. That, in undertaking this task, the Panel should consult widely with all relevant persons and institutions
and other relevant sources of information deemed useful;
two months before the twenty-fifth Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.
Decision XVI/37: Outstanding contributions to the Multilateral Fund
Aware of the forthcoming negotiations on the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the next triennium,
Noting that some Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 have never paid their contributions to the
Multilateral Fund or have done so in an amount inferior to one annual contribution,
Recalling paragraph (c) of decision 39/5 of the Executive Committee, which urged those Parties to pay their
contributions for the 2003–2005 triennium to enable Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to comply
with the 2005–2007 control measures of the Montreal Protocol and to avoid shortfalls arising from the non-
payment or delayed payment of pledged contributions during the compliance period for Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5,
To urge those Parties to pay their outstanding contributions to the Multilateral Fund as soon as possible, in view
of the current compliance needs of Parties operating under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol.
Decision XVII/40: The 2006-2008 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund
1. To adopt a budget for the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol for 2006–
2008 of $470,000,000 on the understanding that $59,600,000 of that budget will be provided from
anticipated contributions due to the Multilateral Fund and other sources for the 2003–2005 triennium, and
that $10,000,000 will be provided from interest accruing to the Fund during the 2006–2008 triennium.
The Parties note that outstanding contributions from some Parties with economies in transition in the
period 2003–2005 stand at $7,511,984;
2. To adopt the scale of contributions for the Multilateral Fund based on a replenishment of $133,466,667
for 2006, $133,466,667 for 2007, and $133,466,666 for 2008 as it appears in annex III to the report of the
seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer and the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer;
486
budget for 2006–2008 is committed by the end of 2008, and that Parties not operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 should make timely payments in accordance with paragraph 7 of decision XI/6.
Decision XIX/10: Terms of reference for the study on the 2009–2011 replenishment of the
Recalling decisions VII/24, X/13, XIII/1 and XVI/35 on previous terms of reference for studies on the
replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
Recalling also decisions VIII/4, XI/7, XIV/39, and XVII/40 on previous replenishments of the Multilateral Fund,
Twentieth Meeting of the Parties, and to present it through the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-
eighth meeting, to enable the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to take a decision on the appropriate level
of the 2009–2011 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund. In preparing its report, the Panel should take
into account, among other things:
(a) All control measures and relevant decisions agreed by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and the
Executive Committee, including decisions agreed by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties and the
Executive Committee at its fifty-third and fifty-fourth meetings insofar as those decisions will
necessitate expenditure by the Multilateral Fund during the period 2009–2011, including scenarios
which indicate eligible incremental costs and cost-efficiencies associated with implementation by
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the adjustments and decisions relating to
HCFCs, and, in addition, the Panel should provide indicative figures for the periods 2012–2014 and
2015–2017 in order to provide information to support a stable level of funding that would be
updated prior to figures for those periods being finalized;
(b) The need to allocate resources to enable all Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to
maintain compliance with Articles 2A–2I of the Montreal Protocol and possible new agreed
compliance measures relevant to the period 2009–2011 under the Montreal Protocol;
(c) Rules and guidelines agreed by the Executive Committee, up to and including its fifty-fourth
meeting, for determining eligibility for funding of investment projects (including those in the
production sector), non-investment projects and sectoral or national phase-out plans;
(e) Financial commitments in 2009–2011 relating to national or sectoral phase-out plans agreed by the
Executive Committee;
(f) The provision of funds for accelerating phase-out and maintaining momentum, taking into account
the time lag in project implementation;
(g) Experience to date, including limitations and successes of the phase-out of ozone-depleting
(h) The impact that the international market, ozone-depleting substance control measures and country
phase-out activities are likely to have on the supply of and demand for ozone-depleting substances,
the corresponding effects on the price of ozone-depleting substances and the resulting incremental
costs of investment projects during the period under review;
(i) Administrative costs of the implementing agencies and the cost of financing the secretariat services
of the Multilateral Fund, including the holding of meetings;
487
2. That, in undertaking this task, the Panel should consult widely with all relevant persons and institutions
3. To request the Panel to provide additional information on the levels of funding required for replenishment
in each of the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 and to study the financial and other implications of a possible
longer replenishment period, in particular whether such a measure would provide for more stable levels
of contributions;
two months before the twenty-eighth Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;
5. To request the Panel to take into account the conclusions resulting from the study conducted by the
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
Executive Committee pursuant to paragraph 2 of decision XVIII/9 in the event that proposals for control
measures related to the subject of that study are submitted to the Ozone Secretariat.
Decision XX/10: 2009–2011 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund
anticipated contributions due to the Multilateral Fund and other sources for the
2006–2008 triennium, and that $16,100,000 will be provided from interest accruing to the Fund during
the 2009–2011 triennium. The Parties note that outstanding contributions from some Parties with
economies in transition in the period 2006–2008 stand at $5,604,438;
eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone
Layer and the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer;
budget for 2009–2011 is committed by the end of 2011, and that Parties not operating under paragraph 1
Decision XXII/3: Terms of reference for the study on the 2012–2014 replenishment of the
Recalling the parties’ decisions on previous terms of reference for studies on the replenishment of the
Recalling also the parties’ decisions on previous replenishments of the Multilateral Fund,
Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties, and to present it through the Open-ended Working Group at its
thirty-first meeting, to enable the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to take a decision on the
appropriate level of the 2012–2014 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund;
2. That, in preparing the report referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Panel should take into account,
among other things:
(a) All control measures and relevant decisions agreed upon by the parties to the Montreal Protocol and
the Executive Committee, in particular those related to the special needs of low-volume- and very-
low-volume-consuming countries, and decisions agreed upon by the Twenty-Second Meeting of the
Parties and the Executive Committee at its sixty-first and sixty-second meetings insofar as those
decisions will necessitate expenditure by the Multilateral Fund during the period 2012–2014;
488
(b) The need to allocate resources to enable all parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Montreal Protocol to maintain compliance with Articles 2A–2E, 2G and 2I of the Protocol;
(c) The need to allocate resources to enable all parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to meet
2013 and 2015 compliance obligations in respect of Articles 2F and 2H of the Protocol;
(d) Rules and guidelines agreed upon by the Executive Committee at all meetings, up to and including
its sixty-second meeting, for determining eligibility for the funding of investment projects,
non-investment projects, including institutional strengthening, measures to combat illegal trade and
sectoral or national phase-out plans, including hydrochlorofluorocarbon phase-out management
plans, measures to manage banks of ozone-depleting substances and ozone-depleting substance
destruction projects;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
(e) The impact that the international market, ozone-depleting substance control measures and country
phase-out activities are likely to have on the supply of and demand for ozone-depleting substances,
the corresponding effects on the price of ozone-depleting substances and the resulting incremental
costs of investment projects during the period under review;
3. That, in preparing the report referred to above, the Panel should consult widely all relevant persons and
institutions and other relevant sources of information deemed useful;
4. That the Panel shall strive to complete the report referred to above in time to enable it to be distributed to
all parties two months before the thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;
5. That the Panel should provide indicative figures for the periods 2015–2017 and 2018-2020 to support a
stable and sufficient level of funding, on the understanding that those figures will be updated in
subsequent replenishment studies.
Decision XXIII/15: 2012–2014 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund
anticipated contributions due to the Multilateral Fund and other sources for the 2009-2011 triennium, and
that $15,100,000 will be provided from interest accruing to the Fund during the 2012–2014 triennium.
The parties note that outstanding contributions from some parties with economies in transition in the
period 2009–2011 stand at $5,924,635;
ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Twenty-third Meeting of
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
budget for 2012–2014 is committed by the end of 2014, and that parties not operating under paragraph 1
Decision XXV/8: Terms of reference for the study on the 2015–2017 replenishment of the
Recalling the parties’ decisions on previous terms of reference for studies on the replenishment of the
Recalling also the parties’ decisions on previous replenishments of the Multilateral Fund,
489
Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties, and to submit it through the Open-ended Working Group at its
thirty-fourth meeting, to enable the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties to take a decision on the
appropriate level of the 2015–2017 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund;
2. That, in preparing the report referred to in paragraph 1 of the present decision, the Panel should take into
account, among other things:
(a) All control measures and relevant decisions agreed upon by the parties to the Montreal Protocol
and the Executive Committee, in particular those pertaining to the special needs of low-volume-
and very-low-volume-consuming countries, in addition to small and medium-sized enterprises, and
MP DECISIONS
the decisions of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties and the Executive Committee at its
ARTICLE 10
seventieth and seventy-first meetings insofar as those decisions will necessitate expenditure by the
Multilateral Fund during the period 2015–2017;
(b) The need to allocate resources to enable all parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to
maintain compliance with Articles 2A–2E, 2G and 2I of the Protocol;
(c) The need to allocate resources to enable all parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to
maintain or meet 2013, 2015 and 2020 compliance obligations in respect of Articles 2F and 2H of
the Protocol, taking into account the extended commitment provided by parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 under approved hydrochlorofluorocarbon phase-out management plans;
(d) Dividing the funding relating to the 2020 target applicable to hydrochlorofluorocarbon
consumption and production in an appropriate manner, including, but not limited to, one scenario
that divides the funding relating to the 2020 target applicable to hydrochlorofluorocarbon
consumption equally between the 2015–2017 and 2018–2020 replenishments;
(e) Rules and guidelines agreed upon by the Executive Committee at all its meetings, up to and
including its seventy-first meeting, for determining eligibility for the funding of investment
projects and non-investment projects, including, but not limited to, institutional strengthening;
(f) The need to allocate sufficient resources to the activities in the servicing sector in stage II of
hydrochlorofluorocarbon phase-out management plans through technical assistance such as
recovery, training and other necessary activities;
3. That, as a separate element to the funding requirement estimated in paragraph 2 of the present decision,
the Panel should provide indicative figures for additional resources that would be needed to enable parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to gradually avoid high-global-warming-potential alternatives to
ozone-depleting substances, taking into account the availability of safe, environmentally friendly,
technically proven and economically viable technologies;
4. That, in preparing the said report, the Panel should consult widely all relevant persons and institutions
5. That the Panel should strive to complete the report referred to above in good time to enable it to be
distributed to all parties two months before the thirty-fourth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;
6. That the Panel should provide indicative figures for the periods 2018–2020 and 2021-2023 to support a
stable and sufficient level of funding, on the understanding that those figures will be updated in
subsequent replenishment studies.
Decision XXVI/10: 2015–2017 Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund
anticipated contributions due to the Multilateral Fund and other sources for the 2012˗2014 triennium, and
490
that $6,000,000 will be provided from interest accruing to the Fund during the 2015–2017 triennium. The
parties note that outstanding contributions from some parties with economies in transition in the period
2012–2014 stands at $8,237,606;
tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Sixth Meeting
of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
budget for 2015–2017 is committed by the end of 2017, and that parties not operating under paragraph 1
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
Decisions on the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism
Decision X/32: Proposal to study a fixed currency exchange rate mechanism for the
Noting that some donor countries make payments to the Multilateral Fund in their national currencies,
and that minor discrepancies often arise from the different exchange rates used to issue and encash their
payments,
Further noting that some financial procedures have been utilized by other multilateral funding
mechanisms to simplify the administration of these contributions and limit these discrepancies,
1. To request the Treasurer of the Multilateral Fund to prepare, in consultation with relevant institutions and
Parties and in time for the nineteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, a discussion paper
which describes how a mechanism using fixed currency exchange rates could be implemented for the
replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the triennium 2000-2002. The paper should examine the
administrative framework, the potential impact and any risks for the operation of the Fund that are
associated with the adoption of such a mechanism. The paper should also include criteria for determining
if a particular currency’s fluctuations had been of such a magnitude that a fixed exchange rate mechanism
would not be practical, in which case that country would continue to make its commitments and payments
in United States dollars;
2. To request the Treasurer of the Multilateral Fund to monitor exchange rates of donor country currencies,
including the Euro, between 1 March 1999 and 30 September 1999, and to submit in time for the
Eleventh Meeting of the Parties a table showing the average exchange rate for each donor country
currency with the United States dollar and Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) for this period.
Decision XI/6: Fixed-exchange-rate mechanism for the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund
Having considered the analysis of the impact on the Multilateral Fund of implementing a fixed
exchange-rate mechanism,
Having also considered the recommendations of its technical segment,
1. To urge Parties to pay their contributions to the Multilateral Fund promptly and in full;
2. That the purpose and objective of introducing the new mechanism is to ease some of the contributing
Parties’ administrative difficulties due to commitments in other than their national currencies, to promote
the timely payment of contributions, and to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the level of available
resources of the Multilateral Fund;
491
3. To direct the Treasurer to proceed with the implementation of the fixed exchange-rate mechanism on a
trial basis for the replenishment (2000–2002), so that payments by contributing Parties to the Fund for the
triennium commencing in 2000, can be made in accordance with this mechanism;
4. That only Parties with inflation rate fluctuations of less than 10 per cent, as per the published figures of
the International Monetary Fund, for the preceding triennium will be eligible to utilize the mechanism;
5. That Parties choosing to pay in national currencies will calculate their contributions based on an average
United Nations exchange rate for the six months preceding the replenishment period. Parties not choosing
to pay in national currencies may continue to pay in United States dollars;
MP DECISIONS
6. That the Meeting of the Parties should review the implementation of the mechanism at the end of 2001
ARTICLE 10
for consideration at the technical segment of the Meeting of the Parties to determine the impact of the
mechanism on the operations of the Multilateral Fund and its impact on the funding of the phase-out of
ozone-depleting substances in Article 5 countries during this triennium so that the ozone-depleting
substances phase-out process is not adversely affected;
7. That, in order to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the Multilateral Fund, Parties should strive
to pay their contributions as early in the calendar year as possible and no later than 1 June of each year.
Parties unable to make their contributions by 1 June should notify the Treasurer as to when during the
calendar or fiscal year their payment will be made, but contributing Parties should strive to pay their
contributions no later than 1 November of that year.
Decision XIII/4: Review of the implementation of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism and

determination of the impact of the mechanism on the operations of the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol and on the funding of the phase-out of ozone-
depleting substances in Article 5 Parties for the triennium 2000-2002
Noting the interim report jointly prepared by the Treasurer and the Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund on the
implementation of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism in response to decision XI/6,
Noting that due to lack of time the report lacks information on a number of areas which the delegates raised at
the 21st Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, in particular the reviewing of the impact of purchasing
power and the experience gained with fixed-exchange-rate mechanisms in other similar institutions,
With the view that the possible impact of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism should be balanced,
1. To request the Treasurer and the Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund to finalize the review, as per decision
XI/6, and give a final report to the Parties at the 22nd Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group; and
2. That in so doing, the Secretariat should:
(a) Consult, as appropriate, other relevant multilateral funding institutions that use a fixed-exchange-
rate mechanism, or similar mechanisms;
(b) Identify options on how a fixed-exchange-rate mechanism could be implemented so that the process
of phasing out ozone-depleting substances is not adversely affected, and hire consultants for that
purpose, as appropriate.
492
Decision XIV/40: Fixed-Exchange-Rate Mechanism for the replenishment of the Multilateral

Fund
Having considered the final report by the Treasurer and the Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund on the
implementation of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism and its impact on the operations of the Fund prepared in
response to Decision XIII/4,
Reaffirming the purpose and objective of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism as set out in paragraph 2, Decision
XI/6 to promote the timely payment of contributions, and to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the level of
MP DECISIONS
available resources of the Multilateral Fund,
ARTICLE 10
Mindful of the conclusions contained in the revised report prepared at the request of the twenty-second Meeting
of the Open-ended Working Group,
Recalling that Decision XI/6 established the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism on a trial basis for the 2000-2002
replenishment period,
1. To direct the Treasurer to extend the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism for a further trial period of three
years;
2. That Parties choosing to pay in national currencies will calculate their contributions based on an average
United Nations exchange rate for the twelve-months preceding the replenishment period. This average
will be based on the twelve-month period immediately preceding the first day of the meeting of the
Parties during which the replenishment level will be decided. Subject to paragraph 3 below, Parties not
choosing to pay in national currencies, pursuant to the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism, will continue to
pay in United States dollars;
3. That no Party should change the currency selected for its contribution in the course of the triennium
period;
4. That only Parties with inflation rate fluctuations of less than 10 per cent, as per published figures of the
International Monetary Fund, for the preceding triennium will be eligible to utilize the mechanism;
5. To urge Parties to pay their contributions to the Multilateral Fund in full and as early as possible in
accordance with paragraph 7 of Decision XI/6;
6. To agree, if the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism is to be used for the next replenishment period, that
Parties choosing to pay in national currencies will calculate their contributions based on an average
United Nations exchange rate for the six-month period commencing 1 July 2004.
Decision XVII/41: Fixed-exchange-rate mechanism for the replenishment of the Multilateral

Fund
Mindful of the conclusions contained in the revised final report by the Treasurer and the secretariat of the
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol on the implementation of the fixed-exchange-
rate mechanism and its impact on the operations of the Fund, prepared in response to decision XIII/4 and
subsequently revised at the request of the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-second meeting,
Reaffirming the purpose and objective of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism as set out in paragraph 2 of
decision XI/6 to promote the timely payment of contributions and to ensure that there is no adverse impact on
the level of available resources of the Multilateral Fund,
Recalling that decision XI/6 established the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism on a trial basis for the 2000–2002
replenishment period and that decision XIV/40 extended the trial period for a further three years,
493
Noting that the latest report by the Treasurer on the status of the Fund as at 31 May 2005 shows that there has
been an overall gain due to the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism of $4,644,136,
Mindful that decision XIV/40 included an agreement that, if the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism was to be used
for the next replenishment period, Parties choosing to pay in national currencies would calculate their
contributions based on the average United Nations exchange rate for the six-month period commencing 1 July
2004,
1. To direct the Treasurer to extend the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism for a further trial period of three
years;
MP DECISIONS
2. That Parties choosing to pay in national currencies will calculate their contributions based on the average
ARTICLE 10
United Nations exchange rate for the six-month period commencing 1 July 2004. Subject to paragraph 3
below, Parties not choosing to pay in national currencies pursuant to the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism
will continue to pay in United States dollars;
3. That no Party should change currency selected for its contribution in the course of the triennium period;
International Monetary Fund, for the preceding triennium will be eligible to utilize the mechanism;
accordance with paragraph 7 of decision XI/6;
6. To agree if the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism is to be used for the next replenishment period, that
Parties choosing to pay in national currencies will calculate their contributions based on the average
United Nations exchange rate for the six-month period commencing 1 January 2008.
Decision XX/11: Extension of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism to the 2009–2011

1. To direct the Treasurer to extend the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism to the period 2009–2011;
2. That Parties choosing to pay their contributions to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol in national currencies will calculate their contributions based on the average United
Nations exchange rate for the six-month period commencing 1 January 2008;
3. That, subject to paragraph 4 below, Parties not choosing to pay in national currencies pursuant to the
fixed-exchange-rate mechanism will continue to pay in United States dollars;
4. That no Party should change the currency selected for its contribution in the course of the triennium
2009–2011;
International Monetary Fund, for the preceding triennium will be eligible to use the fixed-exchange-rate
mechanism;
7. To agree that if the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism is to be used for the replenishment period 2012–2014
Parties choosing to pay their contributions in national currencies will calculate their contributions based
on the average United Nations exchange rate for the six-month period commencing 1 January 2011.
494
Decision XXIII/16: Extension of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism to the 2012–2014

2. That parties choosing to pay their contributions to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
3. That, subject to paragraph 4 below, parties not choosing to pay in national currencies pursuant to the
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
4. That no party should change the currency selected for its contribution in the course of the triennium
2012–2014;
5. That only parties with inflation rate fluctuations of less than 10 per cent, as per published figures of the
International Monetary Fund, for the preceding triennium will be eligible to use the fixed-exchange-rate
mechanism;
6. To urge parties to pay their contributions to the Multilateral Fund in full and as early as possible in
7. To agree that if the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism is to be used for the replenishment period 2015–2017
parties choosing to pay their contributions in national currencies will calculate their contributions based
on the average United Nations exchange rate for the six-month period commencing 1 January 2014.
Decision XXVI/11: Extension of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism to the 2015–2017

2. That parties choosing to pay their contributions to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
3. That, subject to paragraph 4 below, parties not choosing to pay in national currencies pursuant to the
4. That no party should change the currency selected for its contribution in the course of the triennium
2015–2017;
5. That only parties with inflation rate fluctuations of less than 10 per cent, pursuant to published figures of
the International Monetary Fund, for the preceding triennium will be eligible to use the fixed-exchange-
rate mechanism;
6. To urge parties to pay their contributions to the Multilateral Fund in full and as early as possible in
7. To agree that if the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism is to be used for the replenishment period 2018–
2020, parties choosing to pay their contributions in national currencies will calculate their contributions
based on the average United Nations exchange rate for the six-month period commencing 1 January
2017.
495
Decisions on the Executive Committee: membership
Multilateral Fund:
(f) to endorse the selection of Mexico to act as Chairman and of the United States of America to act as Vice-
Chairman for the second year of the Executive Committee.
[The remainder of this Decision is located above under ‘Decisions on replenishments, budgets and
contributions’ and below under ‘Decisions on Executive Committee: organisation’]
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
Decision IV/20: Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
4. to endorse the selection of Canada, France, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation and United
States of America as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties not operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, and the selection of Brazil, Egypt, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia,
Mauritius and Venezuela as members representing Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, for
one year;
5. to endorse the selection of the United States of America to act as Chairman and of Malaysia to act as
Vice-Chairman of the Executive Committee for one year.
contributions’]
Decision V/9: Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol
4. To endorse the selection of Australia, Denmark, France, Japan, Norway, Poland and the United States of
America as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Protocol, and the selection of Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, India, Malaysia,
Venezuela as members representing Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, for one year;
5. To endorse the selection of Malaysia to act as Chair and of Australia to act as Vice-Chair of the Executive
Committee for one year.
contributions’]
Decision VI/7: Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol
1. To endorse the selection of Australia, Austria, Denmark, Japan, Poland, United Kingdom, United States
of America as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties not operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 of the Protocol, and the selection of Algeria, Argentina, China, Colombia, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Cameroon, Thailand as members representing Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5, for one year;
2. To endorse the selection of Mr. John Whitelaw of Australia to act as Chair and of Algeria to act as Vice-
Chair of the Executive Committee for one year.
496
Decision VII/27: Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol
1. To endorse the selection of Australia, Austria, Denmark, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United
Kingdom, and the United States of America as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties
not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, and the selection of Chile, Colombia, India,
Egypt, Kenya, the Philippines, and Senegal as members representing Parties operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5, for one year;
MP DECISIONS
2. To endorse the selection of Kenya to act as Chair and of the United Kingdom to act as Vice-Chair of the
ARTICLE 10
Executive Committee for one year.
Decision VIII/8: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
1. To endorse the selection of Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Japan, Switzerland, United Kingdom and
United States of America as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties not operating
under Article 5 of the Protocol, and the selection of Antigua and Barbuda, China, Costa Rica, India, Peru,
Senegal and Zimbabwe as members representing Parties operating under Article 5, for one year;
2. To endorse the selection of the United Kingdom to act as Chair and of Costa Rica to act as Vice-Chair of
the Executive Committee for one year.
Decision IX/13: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
1. To endorse the selection of Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Italy, Japan, Switzerland and the United States of
America, as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties not operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 of the Protocol, and the selection of Burkina Faso, China, Costa Rica, India, Jordan, Peru, and
Zimbabwe, as members representing Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, for one year;
2. To endorse the selection of Costa Rica to act as Chair and of United States of America to act as Vice-
Chair of the Executive Committee for one year.
Decision X/4: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Executive Committee, with the assistance of the Fund
Secretariat, in the year 1998;
2. To endorse the selection of Belgium, Canada, Italy, Japan, Slovakia, Sweden, and the United States of
America, as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties not operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5 of the Protocol, and the selection of Algeria, Bahamas, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, India and
Uganda, as members representing Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, for one year effective
1 January 1999;
3. To endorse the selection of the United the States of America to act as Chair and of India to act as Vice-
Chair of the Executive Committee for one year effective 1 January 1999.
497
Decision XI/9: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
2. To endorse the selection of Australia, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Sweden and United
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, and the selection of Bahamas, Brazil, China, Dominican
Republic, India, Tunisia and Uganda as members representing Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
MP DECISIONS
Article 5, for one year effective from 1 January 2000;

ARTICLE 10
3. To note the selection of India to act as Chair of the Executive Committee for one year effective from 1
January 2000.
Decision XII/4: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
2. To endorse the selection of Australia, Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland and the United
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, and the selection of Colombia, Dominican Republic, India,
Jordan, Malaysia, Nigeria and Tunisia as members representing Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5, for one year effective 1 January 2001;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Heinrich Kraus (Germany) to serve as Chair and Mr. Hannachi Hassen
(Tunisia) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year effective 1 January 2001.
Decision XIII/27: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
2. To endorse the selection of Canada, Finland, France, Japan, Netherlands, Poland and United States of
America as members of the Executive Committee representing non-Article 5 Parties to the Protocol and
the selection of Burundi, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Nigeria, Syria and Tanzania as members
representing Article 5 Parties, for one year effective 1 January 2002;
3. To note the selection of Engineer Bakare D. Usman (Nigeria) to serve as Chair and Professor Tadanori
Inomata (Japan) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year effective
1 January 2002.
Decision XIV/38: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Executive Committee with the assistance of the Fund
2. To endorse the selection of Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Hungary, Japan and the United States of
America as members of the Executive Committee representing non-Article 5 Parties to the Protocol and
498
the selection of Bolivia, Burundi, El Salvador, India, Jordan, Mauritius and Saint Lucia as members
representing Article 5 Parties, for one year effective 1 January 2003;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Tadanori Inomata (Japan) to serve as Chair and Mr. Roberto Rivas (El
Salvador) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year effective 1 January 2003.
Decision XV/46: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
2. To endorse the selection of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Hungary, Japan, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America as members of the Executive Committee
representing non-Article 5 Parties to the Protocol, and the selection of Argentina, Bangladesh, China,
Cuba, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mauritius and Niger as members representing Article 5 Parties, for
one year with effect from 1 January 2004;
3. To note the selection of Argentina to serve as Chair and Austria to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive
Committee for one year with effect from 1 January 2004.
Decision XVI/43: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
Secretariat in the year 2004;
2. To endorse the selection of Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Japan, the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America as members of the Executive
Committee representing Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and the
selection of Brazil, Cuba, the Niger, the Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Zambia and the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as members representing Parties operating under that paragraph, for
one year effective from 1 January 2005;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Paul Krajnik (Austria) to serve as Chair and Mr. Khaled Klaly (Syrian Arab
Republic) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year with effect from 1 January
2005.
Decision XVII/44: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol with the assistance of the Fund secretariat in 2005;
2. To endorse the selection of Australia, Belgium, Czech Republic, Italy, Japan, Sweden and United States
of Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of Brazil, Burundi, Guinea, India, Mexico, Syrian Arab
Republic and Zambia as members representing Parties operating under that paragraph, for one year with
effect from 1 January 2006;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Khaled Klaly (Syrian Arab Republic) to serve as Chair and Ms. Lesley
Dowling (Australia) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year with effect from 1
January 2006.
499
Decision XVIII/2: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol with the assistance of the Fund secretariat in the year 2006;
2. To endorse the selection of Canada, Sweden, Czech Republic, Japan, United States of America, Belgium
and Italy as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of Sudan, Guinea, Mexico, Saint Lucia, Uruguay, Jordan and
MP DECISIONS
China as members representing Parties operating under that paragraph, for one year with effect from 1
ARTICLE 10
January 2007;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Phillipe Chemouny (Canada) to serve as Chair and Mr. Nimaga Mamadou
(Guinea) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year with effect from 1 January
2007.
Decision XIX/3: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the
Secretariat in the year 2007;
2. To endorse the selection of Belgium, Australia, Romania, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the United
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of Gabon, Sudan, China, India, Lebanon, the
Dominican Republic and Uruguay as members representing Parties operating under that paragraph, for
one year effective from 1 January 2008;
3. To note the selection of Gabon to serve as Chair and Mr. Husamuddin Ahmadzai (Sweden) to serve as
Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year with effect from 1 January 2008.
Decision XX/22: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
2. To endorse the selection of Australia, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Romania, Sweden and the United States
of Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of Bolivia, China, Dominican Republic, Gabon, Georgia,
Namibia and Yemen as members representing Parties operating under that paragraph, for one year
commencing 1 January 2009;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Husamuddin Ahmadzai (Sweden) to serve as Chair and Mr. Juan Tomas
Filpo (Dominican Republic) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year
commencing 1 January 2009.
Decision XXI/27: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
500
2. To endorse the selection of Belgium, France, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Ukraine and United States of
America as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of Colombia, Grenada, Morocco, Namibia, India, Saudi Arabia
and Senegal as members representing Parties operating under that paragraph, for one year beginning 1
January 2010;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Javier Camago (Colombia) to serve as Chair and Mr. Philippe Chemouny
(Canada) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year beginning 1 January 2010.
Decision XXII/24: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
2. To endorse the selection of Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Japan, Switzerland and the
United States of America as members of the Executive Committee representing parties not operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of Argentina, China, Cuba, Grenada,
Kenya, Kuwait and Morocco as members representing parties operating under that paragraph, for one
year beginning 1 January 2011;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Patrick John McInerney (Australia) to serve as Chair and Mr. Wurui Wen
(China) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year beginning 1 January 2011.
Decision XXIII/19: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
1. To note with appreciation the work carried out by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for
the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol with the assistance of the Fund secretariat in 2011;
2. To endorse the selection of Belgium, Canada, Finland, Japan, Romania, United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland and United States of America as members of the Executive Committee representing
parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of Argentina, China,
Cuba, India, Kenya, Jordan and Mali as members representing parties operating under that paragraph, for
one year beginning 1 January 2012;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Xiao Xuezhi (China) to serve as Chair and Ms. Fiona Walters (United
Kingdom) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year beginning 1 January 2012.
Decision XXIV/22: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
2. To endorse the selection of Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Japan, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America as members of the Executive Committee
representing parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of
India, Kuwait, Mali, Nicaragua, Serbia, Uganda and Uruguay as members representing parties operating
under that paragraph, for one year beginning 1 January 2013;
3. To note the selection of Ms. Fiona Walters (United Kingdom) to serve as Chair and Mr. Vladan
Zdravkovic (Serbia) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year beginning 1 January
2013.
501
Decision XXV/18: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, with the assistance of the Fund secretariat, in 2013;
2. To endorse the selection of Australia, Belgium, Italy, Japan, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the
United States of America as members of the Executive Committee, representing parties not operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol; and the selection of China, the Comoros, Grenada,
Mauritius, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia and Uruguay as members of the Executive Committee, representing
MP DECISIONS
parties operating thereunder, for one year beginning on 1 January 2014;

ARTICLE 10
3. To note the selection of Premhans Jhugroo (Mauritius) to serve as Chair and John Thompson (United
States of America) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year beginning on 1
January 2014.
Decision XXVI/19: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
2. To endorse the selection of Bahrain, Brazil, the Comoros, Egypt, Grenada, India and the United Republic
of Tanzania as members of the Executive Committee representing parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of Australia, Belgium, Italy, Japan, Sweden, the Russian
Federation and the United States of America as members representing parties not so operating, for one
year beginning on 1 January 2015;
3. To note the selection of Mr. John Thompson (United States of America) to serve as Chair and Mr. Leslie
Smith (Grenada) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year beginning on 1 January
2015.
Decision XXVII/13: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
2. To endorse the selection of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Japan, the Russian Federation and the
United States of America as members of the Executive Committee representing parties not operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of Argentina, Cameroon, China, Egypt,
India, Jordan and Mexico as members representing parties operating under that paragraph for one year
beginning 1 January 2016;
3. To note the selection of Mr. Agustin Sanchez (Mexico) to serve as Chair and Mr. Paul Krajnik (Austria)
to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year beginning 1 January 2016.
502
Decisions on the Executive Committee: organisation
Multilateral Fund:
(b) to endorse the Rules of Procedure as contained in Annex VI to the Report of the Third Meeting of the
Parties; [see Section 3.6 of this Handbook]
(f) to endorse the selection of Mexico to act as Chairman and of the United States of America to act as Vice-
MP DECISIONS
Chairman for the second year of the Executive Committee.
ARTICLE 10
contributions’]
Decision IX/16: Terms of reference of the Executive Committee
The Ninth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IX/16 to modify the terms of reference of the Executive
Committee:
(a) By inserting at the end of paragraph 2 of Annex X to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties
[see Section 3.6 of this Handbook], the following paragraph:
“2 bis. The members of the Executive Committee whose selection was endorsed by the Eighth
Meeting of the Parties shall remain in office until 31 December 1997. Thereafter, the term of office
of the members of the Committee shall be the calendar year commencing on 1 January of the
calendar year after the date of their endorsement by the Meeting of the Parties;” and
(b) By substituting the following for paragraph 8:
“The Executive Committee shall hold three meetings a year while retaining the flexibility to take
advantage of the opportunity provided by other Montreal Protocol meetings to convene additional
meetings where special circumstances make this desirable.”
Decision XIV/37: Interaction between the Executive Committee and the Implementation
Committee
Noting that the Multilateral Fund has an important responsibility for enabling compliance, but that without
national action, there can be no compliance,
Acknowledging that the Executive Committee, pursuant to the Multilateral Fund’s mandate “to enable
compliance” has a responsibility to consider both the current and forecasted compliance status of a country when
it reviews submissions connected with funding proposals and that, therefore, the Committee should work with
the Party to eliminate the duration of any possible non-compliance,
Mindful of the fact that the Executive Committee’s decisions to approve funding cannot be construed to condone
a Party’s non-compliance and that each Party continues to bear the responsibility to meet its obligations,
1. To request the Executive Committee to therefore make it clear that its funding decisions are always
without prejudice to a Party’s duty to meet its obligations under the Protocol, and are also without
prejudice to the operation of the mechanisms in the Protocol that exist for the treatment of Parties in non-
compliance. Accordingly, the Executive Committee should include language to this effect in its funding
decisions where non-compliance is potentially at issue;
503
2. To note that while the Implementation Committee may take into account information from the Executive
Committee consistent with paragraph 7(f) of the non-compliance procedure, the Executive Committee has
no formal role in the crafting of Implementation Committee recommendations;
3. To further note that in no case should any Implementation Committee action be construed as directly
requiring the Executive Committee to take any specific action regarding the funding of any specific
project;
4. To note that the Executive Committee and Implementation Committee are independent of each other.
However, pursuant to Article 10, the Multilateral Fund operates under the authority of the Parties and,
pursuant to the non-compliance procedure of the Montreal Protocol, the Implementation Committee
MP DECISIONS
reports its recommendations to the Parties for possible decision.

ARTICLE 10
Decision XV/48: Decision on the report of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for
the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
Recalling the terms of reference of the Executive Committee as modified by the ninth Meeting of the Parties in
its decision IX/16,
Aware of the need to improve the selection process for the Chief Officer,
1. To take note with appreciation of the presentation by the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol and of the report of the Executive
Committee contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.15/8;
2. To consider amending, at the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties, the relevant provision of the terms of
reference of the Executive Committee relating to the nomination and appointment of the Chief Officer,
taking into account the proposals of the Chair of the Executive Committee given in the annex to the
present decision, and also those made by other Parties;
3. To request the Executive Committee to enter into consultations with the United Nations Secretariat and
the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme on that matter and to report
thereon to the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties;
Annex
Add the following understanding on paragraph 10 (k) of the terms of reference of the Executive
Committee:
“The Executive Committee should prepare a short list of the eligible candidates, together with its
recommendation, from which the Secretary-General would make a final selection.”
Decision XVI/38: Need to ensure equitable geographical representation in the Executive

Committee of the Multilateral Fund
Recognizing the necessity to ensure equal geographical representation in the Executive Committee,
Noting that, for historical reasons, no seat has been allocated in the Executive Committee for the countries of
Eastern Europe and Central Asia operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
1. To amend paragraph 2 of the terms of reference of the Executive Committee, as modified by the Ninth
Meeting of the Parties in decision IX/16, to read:
504
“2. The Executive Committee shall consist of seven Parties from the group of Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and seven Parties from the group of Parties not so operating.
Each group shall select its Executive Committee members. Seven seats allocated to the group of
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 shall be allocated as follows: two seats to Parties of
the African region, two seats to Parties of the region of Asia and the Pacific, two seats to Parties of
the region of Latin America and the Caribbean, and one rotating seat among the regions referred,
including the region of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The members of the Executive Committee
shall be endorsed by the Meeting of the Parties”;
2. That the issue of seats for Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol and
Parties not so operating shall be added to the agenda of the twenty-fifth meeting of the Open-ended
Working Group.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
Decision XIX/11: Revision of the terms of reference of the Executive Committee
The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIX/11 to amend paragraph 8 of the terms of reference of
the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, as modified
by the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in decision IX/16 and the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties in decision
XVI/38, to read:
“8. The Executive Committee shall have the flexibility to hold two or three meetings annually, if it so
decides, and shall report at each Meeting of the Parties on any decision taken there. The Executive
Committee should consider meeting, when appropriate, in conjunction with other Montreal Protocol
meetings.”
Decisions on reviews and evaluations of the operation of the financial mechanism
Decision V/7: Review of the functioning of the Financial Mechanism since 1 January 1991
1. To note the report on the operation of the Financial Mechanism since 1 January 1991;
2. To note with satisfaction that the operation of the Fund has markedly improved since the commencement
of its activities and to congratulate the Executive Committee and the Fund Secretariat on its excellent
work;
3. To request the Executive Committee to continue to make its best efforts to ensure, in accordance with
national priorities and procedures and in conformity with the terms of reference of the Multilateral Fund
for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, that:
(a) Continued improvements are made to the implementation processes for country programmes, work
plans and projects with the aim of ensuring their speedy implementation and, in particular, the
disbursement of funds;
(b) The Fund Secretariat, implementing agencies and the Parties concerned develop implementation
processes to avoid duplication of effort, working within their respective areas of expertise;
4. Also to request the Executive Committee to ensure that its annual reports cover the achievements of the
operation of the Fund in accordance with its terms of reference, paying particular attention to priorities
set, actions taken and progress made.
Decision V/12: Review under section II, paragraph 4, of decision IV/18 of the Fourth Meeting of
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/12 to request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties
at its tenth meeting to prepare the terms of reference and modalities for a report to meet the requirements of
section II, paragraph 4, of decision IV/18 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
505
Decision VI/6: Reviews under paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the Protocol and under section II,
paragraph 4, of decision IV/18 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
1. To take note of the ongoing reviews under paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol and under
section II, paragraph 4, of decision IV/18 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
2. (a) To approve the loan of US$ 450,000 from the Multilateral Fund to the Secretariat as a one-time
measure to facilitate the review of the Financial Mechanism;
MP DECISIONS
(b) To repay the loan to the Multilateral Fund through necessary additional contributions to the Trust
ARTICLE 10
Fund for the Montreal Protocol as proposed in the revised budgets for 1994 and 1995;
3. To request the Open-ended Working Group to consider the report of the review undertaken under
decision IV/18 and to make recommendations, as appropriate, to the Seventh Meeting of the Parties.
Decision VI/18: Modification of the indicative list of categories of incremental costs under the
Montreal Protocol
The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/18 to request the Open-ended Working Group to examine
the proposal to amend the indicative list of categories of incremental costs under the Montreal Protocol, as
proposed by India and Malaysia and any other related specific proposals brought by the Parties to the eleventh
meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.
Decision VII/22: Review of the Financial Mechanism
1. To request the Executive Committee to consider innovative mobilization of existing and additional
resources in support of Protocol objectives and any further action by the end of 1996 and to report
thereon to the Eighth Meeting of the Parties;
2. That the actions set out in Annex V to the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties should be taken to
improve the functioning of the Financial Mechanism. [reproduced below]
Annex V
[Source: Annex V of the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties]
Actions to improve the financial mechanism for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol
Action 1
(a) Completion of the development by the Executive Committee of (i) a systematic approach to policy
development, (ii) monitoring and evaluation guidelines, bearing in mind that operational responsibility
remains with Governments, financial intermediaries or the Implementing Agencies, (iii) project templates
for all sectors, with a view to having a project evaluation system in place by the end of 1995.
(b) The Executive Committee to examine the integration of Agencies’ and Secretariat’s project review
activities no later than six months after it has concluded that the preconditions for increased delegation set
out in the recommendations in paragraphs 90 and 91 have been met.
(c) Further delegation by the Executive Committee in due course, with a view to achieving appropriate
delegation on over time.
(d) Evaluation of the Small Project Approval Process (SPAP) by the Executive Committee on completion of
the current project group.
506
Action 2
(a) The Executive Committee to develop and take decisions on policy issues already identified, so that a
satisfactory number of such issues have been clearly addressed by late 1996. New policy issues are likely
to continue to emerge, but would be dealt with more expeditiously with refined administrative processes.
(b) A list of foreseeable policy issues to be drafted by the Executive Committee with the help of the
Implementing Agencies and the Fund Secretariat over the next two meetings.
(c) The Fund Secretariat and designated consortia of Implementing Agencies to produce consensus options
for consideration by the Executive Committee.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
(d) Decisions proposed for the consideration of the Executive Committee should clearly indicate the
implications for project proposals if the decisions were to be adopted.
Action 3
The Committee members should normally refrain from speaking on projects in which they have a direct interest.
However, this should not apply to projects which present policy issues, on which the Chair may invite all
members to speak, in order to expedite consideration of such projects. It should be evident from records of
Meetings of the Executive Committee that all projects are given equal treatment by the Committee.
Action 4
The Executive Committee should oversee the completion by the Implementing Agencies and the Secretariat,
jointly, by the end of 1995 of a comprehensive, integrated database common to all agencies and the Secretariat,
in conjunction with the completion of standard project outlines (templates), with a view to achieving a decrease
in the number of projects undergoing substantial revision or reduction in proposed project costs due to the
project review process and review the database in mid-1996.
Action 5
(a) The Executive Committee should examine the effectiveness of its policy dissemination procedures in
early 1996. The procedures should include the provision of practical examples of the application of policy
decisions, with a view to reducing the extent of project revision during the review process, and also
examine the degree to which national ozone protection units and consultants consider they have sufficient
information to guide project development.
(b) The Executive Committee should develop operational guidelines for agencies and their consultants.
(c) The Executive Committee should consider a report on incremental costs for the production of
CFC-substitutes and establish firm compensation policies with a view to completing incremental cost
guidelines for the production of CFC-substitutes by mid-1996.
Action 6
The Executive Committee should evaluate the regime adopted for 1995, taking into account the study’s
recommendations, including the recommendation that: “Cost-effectiveness norms should be prepared based on
model projects of different capacities under standard conditions. Thereafter, projects should be assessed on their
own merits.” Nonetheless, all eligible projects shall continue to be funded overtime irrespective of their relative
cost-effectiveness. In case of delayed funding, however, lump-sum payments could be considered.
Action 7
(a) Relevant Implementing Agencies should review institutional strengthening experiences and present a
combined paper to the Executive Committee, which will include guidelines on the possible proportionate
commitment of Article 5 countries in such areas as financial, organizational and human resource support,
with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of ODS phase-out strategies.
507
(b) Institutional strengthening could include, at the request of Article 5 countries, assistance to meet their
country programme goals relative to laws and regulations.
Action 8
The Executive Committee should select a lead Agency to prepare the framework for a policy dialogue with
Article 5 countries by the end of 1996, with a view to enhancing regulatory support to ODS phase-out in Article
5 countries.
Action 9
The Executive Committee should request a lead Implementing Agency, with the other Agencies and the
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
Secretariat, to further develop, as appropriate, the guidelines for country programmes, taking into account these
recommendations, with a view to the adoption by the Executive Committee of revised guidelines. The Executive
Committee will consider these guidelines in the light of its experience to date taking into account, as appropriate,
the sectoral approach to technology transfer. However, approval of eligible projects should not be made
contingent upon revision of country programmes. Any revision of the country programme would be at the
request of the Party concerned.
Action 10
The study by the World Bank on the establishment of a concessional loan mechanism, requested by the
Executive Committee at its Sixteenth Meeting, should be completed as soon as possible, and analysed and
discussed by the Executive Committee at its Nineteenth Meeting, and a decision on suitable future steps be taken
by the Executive Committee by its Twentieth Meeting or by the Meeting of the Parties in 1996, as appropriate,
with a view to starting the use of concessional loans by the end of 1996, to the extent that the need and demand
exist.
Action 11
The Executive Committee should examine the issue of industrial consolidation, taking into account national
industrial strategies of Article 5 countries, with a view to achieving more effective approaches to ODS phase-
out.
Action 12
Noting that the Executive Committee approved funding for Latin American and African Networks, the
Executive Committee should review the existing similar networks and establish new networks, as appropriate.
Action 13
The Implementing Agencies should report to the Executive Committee on measures to include ODS phase-out
issues into their ongoing dialogue on development programming and on measures they could take to mobilize
non-Fund resources in support of Montreal Protocol objectives, with a view to achieving an increase in the
number of ozone-protection projects.
Action 14
The Executive Committee should consider the need for new Implementing Agencies for loan programmes in the
light of emerging sectoral strategy policies and for methyl bromide after the Seventh Meeting of the Parties.
Action 15
The Executive Committee should urge the Article 5 countries concerned to select Implementing Agencies and
mode of implementation keeping in mind the need to implement projects without delay.
Action 16
The World Bank should report on the training and incentive structure and, at its Nineteenth Meeting, the
Executive Committee should consider this report and the relationship of the costs of training to total overhead
508
costs, in order to ensure that the Executive Committee is fully informed about the role, resourcing and
effectiveness of Financial Intermediaries.
Action 17
The Executive Committee should request each Implementing Agency to report, as and when the issue arises, on
legal and institutional impediments to project implementation and measures taken to address them as soon as
possible.
Action 18
(a) The World Bank and all other institutions associated with the Financial Mechanism should propose
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
measures to assist UNEP in collecting contributions in arrears.
(b) The World Bank should review with UNEP the processes for acceptance of promissory notes.
Action 19
The Executive Committee should monitor the extent to which the available bilateral component is utilized.
Action 20
The Executive Committee should pay attention to training directly related to investment projects and consider
training of technical experts from Article 5 countries, especially when addressing the needs of small-ODS users.
Where the Fund supports eligible projects of research to adapt technology to local circumstances, it should
encourage the involvement of Article 5 country technical experts in the discussions of technical options, and the
effective involvement of local experts in field missions.
Action 21
(a) The Executive Committee should prepare an itemized progress report on measures taken so far, in the
context of Article 10 of the Protocol, to establish a mechanism specifically for the transfer of technology
and the technical know-how at fair and most favourable conditions necessary to phase out ozone-
depleting substances; and at the same time.
(b) The Executive Committee should request UNEP to intensify its efforts to collect information from
relevant sources, and to prepare an inventory and assessment of environmentally sound and economically
viable technologies and know-how conducive to phase out of ozone-depleting substances. This inventory
should also include an elaboration of terms under which transfers of such technologies and know-how
could take place.
(c) The Executive Committee should consider what steps can practicably be taken to eliminate any
impediments in the international flow of technology.
(d) The Executive Committee should further elaborate the issue of the eligible incremental costs of
technology transfer, including costs of patents and designs and the incremental costs of royalties as
negotiated by the recipient enterprises.
The actions in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) should be completed by its Nineteenth Meeting and updated
periodically, and the action in subparagraph (d) should be taken immediately.
Decision VIII/5: Actions to improve the functioning of the Financial Mechanism
The Eighth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VIII/5 to request the Executive Committee to move forward
as expeditiously as possible on decision VII/22, and in particular Actions 5, 6, 10, 11, 14 and 21, and to report
back to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.
509
Decision VIII/7: Measures taken to improve the Financial Mechanism and technology transfer
1. To note with appreciation the measures taken by the Executive Committee to improve the Financial
Mechanism;
2. To request the Executive Committee to continue with further actions to implement decision VII/22 to
improve the Financial Mechanism and report to the Meetings of the Parties annually.
[The remainder of this decision is located under Article 10A]

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
Decision IX/14: Measures taken to improve the Financial Mechanism and technology transfer
Mechanism and the work of the Informal Group on Technology Transfer established under decision
VIII/7;
improve the Financial Mechanism and to include in its annual report to the Meeting of the Parties an
annex updating information on each action that has not been previously completed, as well as a list of
actions that have been completed;
3. To note the status of work undertaken to date pursuant to action 21 under decision VII/22;
4. To request the Executive Committee, with the assistance of the Informal Group, to expeditiously identify
steps that can practically be taken to eliminate potential impediments to the transfer of ozone-friendly
technologies to Parties operating under Article 5 under fair and most favourable conditions;
5. To review this matter at the Tenth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision X/31: Measures taken to improve the Financial Mechanism and technology transfer
1. To note with appreciation the work and the report of the Executive Committee on the measures taken to
improve the Financial Mechanism and technology transfer and on its excellent functioning in 1998;
2. To request the Executive Committee to report annually to the Meetings of the Parties on the operation of
the Financial Mechanism and the measures taken to improve the operation.
Decision XIII/3: Evaluation study on the managing and implementing bodies of the financial
1. To evaluate and review, by 2004, the financial mechanism established by Article 10 of the Montreal
Protocol with a view to ensuring its consistent, effective functioning in meeting the needs of
Article 5 Parties and non-Article 5 Parties in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol, and to launch a
process for an external, independent study in that regard which shall be made available to the 16th
2. That the study shall focus on the management of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol;
3. That the terms of reference and modalities of the study shall be submitted to the 15th Meeting of the
Parties;
510
4. To consider the necessity to launch such an evaluation on a periodic basis;
5. To request the existing evaluation mechanism in place within the United Nations system to provide the
Meeting of the Parties, for its consideration, with any relevant findings on the management of the
financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol at any time such findings are available.
Decision XV/47: Terms of reference for a study on the management of the financial mechanism
MP DECISIONS
1. To approve the terms of reference of the study on the management of the financial mechanism of the
ARTICLE 10
Montreal Protocol, contained in annex V to the present report;
2. To set up a steering panel of six members to supervise the evaluation process and to select a consultant or
consultants to carry out the study, to act as a point of contact for the consultant or consultants during the
course of the study and to ensure that the terms of reference are implemented in the most appropriate
manner possible;
3. To select the following six members to serve as the steering panel from among the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol: Algeria, Colombia, France, Japan, Syrian Arab Republic and the United States of America. The
appointed panel has equal representation of individuals selected by Parties operating under Article 5 of
the Montreal Protocol and Parties not so operating;
4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to finalize the procedure for the selection of the qualified external and
independent consultant or consultants. On the basis of submitted proposals, the Secretariat shall prepare a
short list of qualified bidders and facilitate review of relevant proposals by the steering panel;
5. To instruct the steering panel to organize its meetings with the assistance of the Ozone Secretariat with
dates and venues selected, as far as possible, to coincide with other ozone meetings, thereby reducing the
related costs;
6. To approve the provision of up to $500,000 in the 2004 budget of the Trust Fund for the Montreal
Protocol to fund the study;
7. To ensure that the final report and recommendations are made available to Parties for consideration at the
Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XVI/36: Evaluation and review of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol
(decision XV/47)
Taking note with appreciation of the 2004 evaluation and review of the financial mechanism of the Montreal
Protocol,
Noting also that the Multilateral Fund is an essential instrument for enabling compliance with the Montreal
Protocol by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and therefore one of the pillars of the
success of the regime for the protection of the ozone layer,
1. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund, within its mandate, to consider the report
on the 2004 evaluation and review of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol, with a view to
adopting its recommendations, whenever appropriate, in the process of continuous improvement of the
management of the Multilateral Fund, and having in mind the need to contribute to the assessment by the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel of the 2006–2008 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund;
2. To request the Executive Committee regularly to report back to and seek guidance from the Parties on the
subject. To this effect, the Executive Committee shall submit a preliminary assessment to the Open-ended
Working Group at its twenty-fifth meeting and include a component in its annual report to the Meeting of
511
the Parties, on progress made and issues encountered in its consideration of the recommended actions
contained in the executive summary of the evaluation report.
Decision XXI/28: Evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol
The Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXI/28 to start discussing the terms of reference for an
evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol during the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended
Working Group, in 2010, and to finalize them during the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties, in 2011, at the
latest.
Decision XXII/2: Terms of reference for an evaluation of the financial mechanism of the
MP DECISIONS
Montreal Protocol
ARTICLE 10
1. To approve the terms of reference for an evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol
contained in the annex to the present decision;
2. To set up a steering panel of eight members to supervise the evaluation process, to select an evaluator to
carry out the evaluation, to act as a point of contact for the evaluator during the evaluation and to ensure
that the terms of reference are implemented in the most appropriate manner possible;
3. To select from among the parties to the Montreal Protocol the following eight parties to serve as the
members of the steering panel: Austria, Canada, Colombia, India, Japan, Nigeria, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia and the United States of America, thereby ensuring that the appointed panel has
equal representation of individuals selected by parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Montreal Protocol and parties not so operating;
4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to finalize the procedure for the selection of the qualified external and
independent evaluator: on the basis of submitted proposals, the Secretariat shall prepare a shortlist of
qualified applicants and facilitate the review of relevant proposals by the steering panel;
5. To instruct the steering panel to organize its meetings with the assistance of the Ozone Secretariat with
dates and venues selected, as far as possible, to coincide with other Montreal Protocol meetings, thereby
reducing related costs;
6. To approve a total budget for the evaluation of up to 200,000 United States dollars, with the amount of
$70,000 to start the application bidding process to come from the 2011 budget of the Trust Fund for the
Montreal Protocol on the understanding that the parties will decide in 2011 on the funding source for the
balance of the budget;
7. To ensure that the final report and recommendations of the evaluator are made available to parties for
consideration at the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties.
Terms of reference for an evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol
A. Preamble
1. The achievements of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol have often been recognized by the
international community, and there is no doubt that the mechanism is both a cornerstone of the Protocol
and an outstanding example of multilateral cooperation. Indeed, by the end of 2009 the Multilateral Fund
had approved projects to phase out the consumption and production of about 458,000
ozone-depleting-potential (ODP) tonnes of ozone-depleting substances in developing countries, and over
85 per cent of this amount had already been phased out. As a result of those activities, nearly all parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol are in compliance with their obligations under
the Protocol, while most of their consumption and production of ozone-depleting substances, except for
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), has been eliminated.
512
2. The financial mechanism was established by Article 10 of the Montreal Protocol to provide financial and
technical cooperation to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to enable their compliance with
the Protocol’s control measures. The Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol recognized
the need to review periodically the operation of the financial mechanism to ensure maximum
effectiveness in pursuing the goals of the Montreal Protocol. Since its inception in 1991, the mechanism,
which includes the Multilateral Fund, an Executive Committee, a Secretariat and implementing and
bilateral agencies, has been evaluated twice by the parties, in 1994–1995 and 2003-2004.
3. The year 2010 is a landmark year in the history of both the Montreal Protocol and the financial
mechanism, as virtually all remaining production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
halons and carbon tetrachloride was to be phased out by 1 January 2010. In the light of this major
milestone, it is particularly timely for the parties to the Protocol to take a retrospective look at the
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
achievements of the financial mechanism, the challenges that it has faced, the manner in which they have
been addressed and the lessons that have been learned, with a view to ensuring that the mechanism is well
placed to address the challenges of the future effectively. Those challenges include phasing out HCFCs
and the remaining consumption of methyl bromide and implementing ozone-depleting substance
destruction pilot projects.
B. Purpose
4. In the light of the above, and considering that it has been more than five years since the last evaluation
was conducted, the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties decided that it was appropriate to evaluate and
review the financial mechanism with a view to ensuring its effective functioning in meeting the needs of
parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and parties not so operating in accordance with Article 10
of the Protocol. The study should be based on the present terms of reference, defined by the scope
described below and carried out by an independent evaluator and completed by May 2012, in time for
consideration by the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol at its
thirty-second meeting.
C. Scope
5. In carrying out the study, the evaluator should consider the results, policy framework, organizational
structure and lessons learned associated with the financial mechanism as follows:
(a) Results of the financial mechanism:
(i) Extent to which both investment and non-investment projects approved under the Multilateral
Fund have contributed to phasing out ozone-depleting substances in parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 in accordance with Montreal Protocol compliance targets;
(ii) Total reductions of ozone-depleting substances in ODP-tonnes and metric tonnes resulting
from Multilateral Fund activities;
(iii) Analysis of other environmental and health co-benefits, including climate benefits, as well as
adverse effects resulting from activities funded by the Multilateral Fund to phase out ozone-
(iv) Comparison of ozone-depleting substance phase-out planned in approved projects and

ozone-depleting substance phase-out achieved;
(v) Comparison of planned cost-effectiveness of approved projects and actual cost-effectiveness;
(vi) Comparison of planned project implementation time and implementation time achieved;
(vii) Effectiveness of capacity-building provided, including institutional strengthening and

compliance assistance;
(b) Policies and procedures:
(i) Effectiveness of timing between meetings, submission deadlines and reporting deadlines;
513
(ii) Effectiveness, consistency and efficiency of procedures and practices to develop, review and
approve project proposals under the Multilateral Fund;
(iii) Ability of the project and activity planning and implementation process to ensure compliance;
(iv) Effectiveness and efficiency of monitoring, reporting procedures and practices;
(v) Ability and efficiency of internal evaluation and verification mechanisms to monitor and
confirm results, including an analysis of existing databases;
(vi) Extent to which policies and procedures are adapted or improved based on experiences and
relevant circumstances;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
(c) Other issues:
(i) Review of the distribution of funding among regions where parties operating under paragraph
1 of Article 5 are located, as well as between low-volume consuming countries and non-low-
volume consuming countries;
(ii) Extent to which programmes and projects approved under the financial mechanism have
facilitated the implementation of the technology transfer provisions under Articles 10 and 10A
of the Montreal Protocol and related decisions of the Parties, taking into account the
geographical origin by region of technology provided in a representative sample of projects;
(d) Lessons learned:
(i) Lessons learned in view of the future challenges of the Montreal Protocol and the Multilateral
Fund;
(ii) Lessons learned from other international environmental institutions and agreements.
D. Form and presentation of the study
6. The study shall be presented using a practical, easy-to-use and easy-to-read layout, and should include a
comprehensive summary for policymakers of some 30 pages and a detailed index followed by the body of
the study and its annexes.
E. Conclusions and recommendations
7. In carrying out the study, the evaluator will identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
associated with the financial mechanism and, where relevant, make recommendations suggesting possible
improvements with regard to: results achieved; organizational effectiveness and decision-making
processes; effectiveness of technology transfer; information dissemination and capacity-building
activities; cooperation with other organizations; and any other area of particular relevance.
F. Sources of information
8. The Multilateral Fund Secretariat, the Ozone Secretariat, the Executive Committee, the implementing and
bilateral agencies, the Treasurer, ozone offices, recipient countries and companies are invited to cooperate
with the evaluator and to provide all necessary information including information on cost-effectiveness.
The Multilateral Fund Secretariat is invited to provide all necessary data related to the items listed above
in paragraphs 5 (a) (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi). The evaluation should take into account the relevant
decisions of the Meeting of the Parties and the Executive Committee.
9. The evaluator should widely consult relevant persons and institutions and other relevant sources of
information deemed useful.
G. Time frame and milestones
10. The following table presents a tentative time frame and milestones for the study.
514
November 2010 Approval of the terms of reference by the Meeting of the Parties
Selection of a steering panel by the Meeting of the Parties
January 2011 Finalization of the criteria and procedure for the selection of the qualified external and independent
evaluator
March 2011 Analysis of bids by the Ozone Secretariat and, on the basis of the criteria, recommendations to
steering panel
Independent evaluator selected by the panel
April 2011 Contract awarded
Evaluator provides an inception report and meets the steering panel to discuss study modalities and
details
December 2011 Mid-term review: preliminary draft report submitted to and reviewed by the steering panel
February 2012 Final draft report submitted to and reviewed by the steering panel
May 2012 Final draft report submitted to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
September 2012 Final report submitted to the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties
Decision XXIV/11: Evaluation of the financial mechanism
Noting that the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol is an efficient and effective
instrument for enabling compliance with the Protocol by parties operating under paragraph 1 of its Article 5,
Recognizing that parties consider periodic evaluations of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol an
important means of ensuring the continued efficiency and effectiveness of the Multilateral Fund,
Recognizing also the role of the Multilateral Fund as a cornerstone of the Montreal Protocol and as a key
mechanism for the success of the ozone layer regime,
1. To note with appreciation the report on the 2012 evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal
Protocol;
2. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund, within its mandate, to consider the report
on the 2012 evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol, as appropriate, in the
process of continuously improving the management of the Multilateral Fund.
Other decisions on the operation of the financial mechanism
Decision V/23: Funding of methyl bromide projects by the Executive Committee of the
1. To authorize the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal
Protocol to provide funding for a limited number of methyl bromide projects for data collection,
information exchange within the scope of country programmes, in line with paragraphs 1 (b) and (c) of
decision IV/23 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties, as well as for a limited number of methyl bromide
alternative demonstration projects, which should be selected with the assistance of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel;
2. To request the implementing agencies to cooperate according to their specific expertise to assist in
implementing the present decision;
3. To encourage Parties to provide bilateral support for other methyl bromide studies and projects in
developing countries (over and above contributions to the Fund).
515

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
transfer;
10A;
Decision VII/23: Financial planning in the Multilateral Fund
1. To note with appreciation the report and the outline and framework for a three-year rolling business plan
prepared by the Executive Committee;
2. To request the Executive Committee to provide to the Parties at their Eighth Meeting a full three-year
rolling business plan based on the outline and framework approved by the Parties at their Seventh
Meeting;
3. To note that the three-year rolling business plan must reflect the purpose of the Multilateral Fund, which
is to enable Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to meet their Protocol obligations. The plan
would be based on the level of replenishment decided by the Parties and should be used as a basis for
projecting beyond the period of the current replenishment. The plan should be based on, inter alia, the
intersectoral priorities and strategies contained in the country programmes and should be consistent with
agreed commitments under the Montreal Protocol.
Decision VII/25: Provision by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund of specific
financial support for projects in low-volume-ODS-consuming countries (LVCs)
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/25 to request the Executive Committee of the
Multilateral Fund to provide specific support to low-volume-ODS-consuming countries (LVCs) by:
(a) Allocating sufficient funds for projects in low-volume-ODS-consuming countries to further strengthen
and expand awareness and training programmes, especially in the area of refrigerant management;
(b) Supporting specialized assistance such as a workshop to establish regulatory and legislative measures
required to facilitate the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances;
(c) Allowing financing of eligible retrofitting projects, in sectors vital to LVC economies on a case-by-case
basis where this can be shown to be the best approach;
516
(d) Requesting the United Nations Environment Programme, due to its extensive experience with low-
volume-ODS-consuming countries (LVCs), to take the lead in preparing an overall approach in
addressing these needs;
(e) Providing funds to low-volume-ODS-consuming countries, on a regional basis, to organize training

workshops for their customs and other officers on the harmonized system and other systems to control
and monitor consumption of ozone-depleting substances;
Approval of projects in low-volume-ODS-consuming countries and very low-volume-ODS-consuming countries

should be based upon a more appropriate project-appraisal approach reflecting the particular circumstances
encountered by the countries referred to above.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
Decision IX/15: Production sector
Noting the progress in the preparation of the guidelines for funding the production sector indicated in the report
of the Executive Committee to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties,
Recognizing the importance of timely phase-out of ozone-depleting substances in the countries operating under
Article 5,
Recognizing the equal importance of funding both the closure of facilities and the production of substitutes for
Recognizing the importance of technology transfer for the effective implementation of the activities in the
production sector,
To request the Executive Committee to accelerate the formulation of the guidelines for funding the production
sector and the subsequent approval of relevant projects in this sector.
Decision X/17: Production sector
Noting the recent estimation by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel of high atmospheric
emissions of carbon tetrachloride (almost 41,000 tonnes in 1996), out of which about 70 per cent was
contributed by use of carbon tetrachloride as a feedstock to produce CFCs,
Noting the assessment of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel that closure of
CFC-manufacturing facilities in Article 5 Parties and Parties with economies in transition with
accelerated introduction of alternatives could lead to a reduction in carbon tetrachloride emissions to the
environment,
Noting that the Ninth Meeting of the Parties requested the Executive Committee to accelerate the
formulation of guidelines for funding the phase-out in the production sector and subsequent approval of
relevant projects in this sector,
1. To request the Executive Committee to complete the task of formulation of guidelines for funding the
production sector on a priority basis and expeditiously;
2. To further request the Executive Committee to facilitate the formulation of projects for funding the
CFC-production sector and their subsequent approval on a priority basis.
517
Decision XI/27: Refrigerant management plans
The Eleventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XI/27 to request the Multilateral Fund Executive Committee
to finalize the formulation of guidelines for refrigerant management plans for high volume ozone-depleting-
substance-consuming countries as soon as possible and subsequently approve funding in accordance with the
guidelines for such projects in the pipeline.
Decision XII/16: Organization of Ozone Secretariat and Multilateral Fund meetings
The Twelfth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XII/16 that when meetings organized by the Ozone
Secretariat and the Multilateral Fund secretariat are organized back-to-back, the two secretariats should
coordinate arrangements to the greatest extent possible and, where possible and advantageous to the Parties,
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10
should seek to negotiate joint agreements with the hosting venue.
Decision XVI/8: Request for technical and financial support relating to methyl bromide
alternatives
Considering the Copenhagen Amendment calling for the total elimination of methyl bromide,
Considering the number and size of requests for critical-use exemptions,
Considering the significant quantities of methyl bromide used for pre-shipment and quarantine purposes,
Considering the conclusions of the regional workshop on experiences in using alternatives to methyl bromide,
held in Dakar, Senegal, from 8 to 11 March 2004,
Considering the fact that the Multilateral Fund has provided some support to countries that use little or no methyl
bromide to enable them to put in place bans on imports and to phase out remaining methyl bromide uses,
1. To reinforce the fact that Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol that
use little or no methyl bromide need technical and financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund to
enable them to identify environmentally safe strategies and plans effectively to implement the methyl
bromide provisions of the Montreal Protocol;
2. To request the Ozone Secretariat to translate into the official United Nations languages and to publish in
those languages a summary of the alternatives-related components of the reports prepared by the Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee.
Decision XXI/29: Institutional strengthening
Taking into account that the Parties to the Montreal Protocol have assumed a firm commitment to recover and
protect the ozone layer,
Acknowledging that institutional strengthening support from the Multilateral Fund has played a paramount role
in acquiring and enhancing the capacity of national ozone units to allow Article 5 Parties to comply with their
commitments to ODS phase-out,
Recognizing the heavy workload and future challenges that Article 5 Parties still have to face looking towards
the consolidation of CFC, halon and carbon tetrachloride phase-out, the phase-out of methyl bromide and the
accelerated HCFC phase-out,
Acknowledging that decision 57/36 of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund limits fund requests for
the renewal of institutional strengthening projects up to the end of December 2010 at current levels,
518
Recognizing that such a decision could have an impact on Article 5 Parties’ capacity to handle the complexity
involved in ozone-depleting substance phase-out,
1. To urge the Executive Committee to extend financial support for institutional strengthening funding for
Article 5 Parties beyond 2010;
2. To urge the Executive Committee to finalize its consideration of funding of institutional strengthening
projects as expeditiously as possible, taking into account current and emerging challenges;
3. To recommend that the Executive Committee does not require that institutional strengthening funding be
incorporated within funding for HCFC phase-out management plans only, but allows flexibility for an
MP DECISIONS
Article 5 party to do so if it so chooses.
ARTICLE 10
519
Decision I/4: Workplans required by Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/4 to consider the following elements as the first components
for the workplans required by Articles 9 and 10 [note: this refers to the original Article 10 of the Protocol, on
technical assistance] of the Protocol:
(a) dissemination of the reports of the panels for scientific, environmental, technical, and economic
assessments, as well as the synthesis report, and their follow-up;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 10A
(b) regular updating of the panel reports, taking into account in particular the developments in the fields of
production of environmentally sound substitutes or alternative technological solutions to the use of CFCs
or halons;
(c) development of a programme, which will include workshops, demonstration projects, training courses,
the exchange of experts and the provision of consultants on control options, taking into account the
special needs of developing countries, for the consideration by the Parties at their second meeting;
(d) preparation of a study of retrofit technologies applicable to existing manufacturing facilities that produce
controlled substances or products made with or containing such substances, to be presented to the Parties
for their consideration at their Second Meeting;
(e) facilitation of the production and wide dissemination of material for public information;
(f) exploration of specific ways of promoting exchange and transfer of environmentally sound substitutes
and alternative technologies;
(g) initiatives to support activities in programmes of international organizations and financing agencies that
could contribute towards implementing the provisions of the Protocol, and defining means by which the
Secretariat can initiate concrete contacts with the appropriate international organizations, programmes
and financing agencies for this purpose.
Decision II/14: Workplans required by Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/14 to request the Executive Committee under the Financial
Mechanism and the Secretariat to take into account in their work the recommendations on workplans required by
Article 9 and Article 10 [note: this refers to the original Article 10 of the Protocol, on technical assistance] of
the Protocol, as adopted by the third session of the first meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the
Parties to the Protocol.

transfer;
520
10A;
Decision VII/26: Technology transfer
MP DECISIONS
1. To recognize the role of technology transfer in enabling Parties to meet their obligations under the
ARTICLE 10A
Protocol;
2. To note with appreciation the interim report of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.7/10) on measures taken so far in the context of Article 10 of the Protocol, to establish a
mechanism specifically for the transfer of technology and the technical know-how at fair and most
favourable conditions necessary to phase-out ozone-depleting substances;
3. To request the Executive Committee to re-examine its interim conclusions contained in paragraphs 11
and 13 of that report in the light of issues raised in paragraph 45 of the report of the Eighteenth Meeting
of the Executive Committee (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom.18/75), the Report on the Review under
Paragraph 8 of Article 5, and the Study on the Financial Mechanism of the Montreal Protocol, and other
issues including equity, limited resources, conditions attached to project approvals and payment of
technology transfer fees as negotiated by enterprises in Parties operating under Article 5;
4. To request the Executive Committee to provide a final report on this issue to the Eighth Meeting of the
Parties. In particular, in preparing its report to the Eighth Meeting of the Parties, the Executive
Committee is requested to seek input from Article 5 Parties on their experience with impediments to
technology transfer and to identify solutions to overcome such impediments. The Executive Committee is
authorized to provide appropriate funding, if necessary, for this purpose.
Decision VIII/7: Measures taken to improve the Financial Mechanism and technology transfer
3. To note the status of preparation of the report on transfer of technology required by Action 21 of decision
VII/22;
4. To set up an Informal Group consisting of four representatives of Parties not operating under Article 5 (1)
(Australia, Italy, Netherlands, United States of America) and four representatives of Parties operating
under Article 5 (1) (China, Colombia, Ghana, India) to assist the Executive Committee in identifying
what steps can practically be taken to eliminate potential impediments to the transfer of ozone-friendly
5. The Group may meet as necessary and shall submit its reports, if any, to the Executive Committee;
6. To review this matter at its Ninth Meeting.
[The remainder of this decision is located under Article 10]
Decision IX/14: Measures taken to improve the Financial Mechanism and technology transfer
Mechanism and the work of the Informal Group on Technology Transfer established under decision
VIII/7;
521
improve the Financial Mechanism and to include in its annual report to the Meeting of the Parties an
annex updating information on each action that has not been previously completed, as well as a list of
actions that have been completed;
3. To note the status of work undertaken to date pursuant to action 21 under decision VII/22;
4. To request the Executive Committee, with the assistance of the Informal Group, to expeditiously identify
steps that can practically be taken to eliminate potential impediments to the transfer of ozone-friendly
MP DECISIONS
5. To review this matter at the Tenth Meeting of the Parties.

ARTICLE 10A
Decision X/31: Measures taken to improve the Financial Mechanism and technology transfer
1. To note with appreciation the work and the report of the Executive Committee on the measures taken to
improve the Financial Mechanism and technology transfer and on its excellent functioning in 1998;
2. To request the Executive Committee to report annually to the Meetings of the Parties on the operation of
the Financial Mechanism and the measures taken to improve the operation.
522
Article 11: Meetings of the Parties
Decisions on meetings of the Parties
Decision II/20: Third Meeting of the Parties
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/20 to convene the Third Meeting of the Parties from 19 to
21 June 1991 in conjuction with and at the same venue as the second meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
the Vienna Convention.
Decision III/18: Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 11
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/18 to convene the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol in September or October 1992 in Denmark.
Decision IV/31: Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/31 to convene the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol in October/November 1993.
Decision V/27: Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/27 to convene the Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol in September/November 1994 in Nairobi.
Decision V/28: Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/28 to express its gratitude to the Government of Austria for
its generous offer to host the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Vienna in 1995, to mark
the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.
Decision VI/20: Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
1. To reaffirm decision V/28 of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties, by which the Parties expressed their
gratitude to the Government of Austria for its generous offer to host the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol in Vienna in 1995, to mark the tenth anniversary of the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer;
2. To convene the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Vienna from 28 November to
7 December 1995.
Decision VII/38: Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
1. That the Eighth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol will be held in Costa Rica in 1996;
2. That the Ninth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol will be held in Montreal, Canada in 1997;
3. That the Tenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol will be held in Egypt in 1998.
Decision VIII/30: Ninth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
1. To reaffirm decision VII/38 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, by which the Parties decided to hold
the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in Montreal, Canada, in September 1997;
523
2. To convene the Ninth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Montreal in September 1997.
Decision IX/40: Tenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
1. To reaffirm decision VII/38 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, by which the Parties decided to hold
the Tenth Meeting of the Parties in Egypt in 1998;
2. To convene the Tenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Cairo, in November 1998.
MP DECISIONS
Decision X/34: Eleventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

ARTICLE 11
The Tenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. X/34 to convene the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol in China, in November 1999.
Decision XI/29: Twelfth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Eleventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XI/29 to convene the Twelfth Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol in Burkina Faso, in October 2000.
Decision XII/18: Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Twelfth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XII/18 to convene the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol in Colombo, Sri Lanka, from 15 to 19 October 2001.
Decision XIII/33: Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIII/33 to convene the 14th Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol at the seat of the Secretariat, in Nairobi, during the week of 25 to 29 November 2002 unless
other appropriate arrangements are made by the Secretariat in consultation with the Parties.
Decision XIV/43: Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIV/43 to convene the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol at the seat of the Secretariat, in Nairobi, and at a date to be decided by the Parties unless
other appropriate arrangements are made by the Secretariat in consultation with the Parties.
Decision XV/56: Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties
Recognizing that the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties has been unable to complete consideration of the items on
its agenda,
Recalling Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Protocol,
Having regard to paragraph 3 of rule 4 and to rule 13 of the rules of procedure,
1. To deem necessary an extraordinary Meeting of the Parties, to be funded from the Trust Fund of the
Montreal Protocol;
2. That the extraordinary Meeting of the Parties shall be held from 24 to 26 March 2004;
3. That the provisional agenda of the extraordinary Meeting of the Parties is set out in the annex to the
present decision;
524
4. To make a financial provision of $596,000 from the Trust Fund of the Montreal Protocol for the 2004
budget, for the expenses of the extraordinary Meeting of the Parties, including funds for the attendance of
the members and experts of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee at its special meeting;
Annex
Provisional agenda for the extraordinary Meeting of the Parties
1. Opening of the Meeting.
2. Organizational matters:
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 11
(a) Adoption of the agenda;
(b) Organization of work.
3. Discussion on the issues and on draft decisions:
(a) Adjustment of the Montreal Protocol regarding further specific interim reductions of methyl
bromide for the period beyond 2005, applicable to Article 5 Parties;
(b) Nominations for critical use exemptions for methyl bromide;
(c) Conditions for granting and reporting critical use exemptions for methyl bromide;
(d) Consideration of the working procedures of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee
as they relate to the evaluation of nominations for critical use exemptions;
4. Adoption of the report of the extraordinary Meeting of the Parties;
5. Closure of the Meeting.
Decision XV/57: Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XV/57 to convene the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol in Prague from 22 to 26 November 2004.
Decision XVI/46: Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties
Recognizing that the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties has been unable to complete consideration of the items on
its agenda,
Recalling Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Protocol,
Having regard to paragraph 3 of rule 4 and to rule 13 of the rules of procedure,
1. To deem necessary an extraordinary Meeting of the Parties, on the understanding that this will not give
rise to any further financial implication;
2. That the extraordinary Meeting of the Parties shall be held in conjunction with the twenty-fifth meeting
of the Open-Ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
3. That the provisional agenda of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties is as set out below:
Annex
525
Provisional agenda for the extraordinary Meeting of the Parties
1. Opening of the Meeting.
2. Organizational matters:
(a) Adoption of the agenda;
(b) Organization of work.
3. Review of the critical-use nominations for methyl bromide for 2006.

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 11
4. Adoption of the report of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties.
5. Closure of the Meeting.
Decision XVI/47: Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVI/47 to convene the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol in Dakar, Senegal, in 2005.
Decision XVII/47: Dates of future Montreal Protocol meetings
Noting with appreciation the work undertaken by the Ozone Secretariat and the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel in organizing and servicing the Meetings of the Parties, meetings of the Open-ended Working
Group, and meetings of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees,
Recognizing that certain legal requirements of the Montreal Protocol and actions of the Parties depend on
sufficient time being available for Parties to consider information supplied by the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel related to possible amendments and adjustments of the Protocol, and the requirement under
Article 9 of the Vienna Convention for a Party to submit such information six months prior to the Meeting of the
Parties,
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat to:
(a) Post on its website by 31 January each year the indicative dates for the next two meetings of the
Open-ended Working Group and Meetings of the Parties, ensuring to the extent possible that the
Open-ended Working Groups are held back-to-back with the meetings of the Executive Committee
and that the scheduling of the Meeting of the Parties is done in consultation with the host
Government;
(b) If, subsequent to such posting, circumstances arise that necessitate a change to such indicative
meeting dates, to revise the posting on its website and to notify the Parties within one week of such
change;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to:
(a) Post on its website by 20 January in the year in which the meetings take place, the dates in the
coming year for its meetings and meetings of its technical options committees;
(b) Make best endeavours to provide annual reports of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
and its technical options committees and any task force reports approximately seven months before
the Meeting of the Parties in order to allow sufficient time for the Parties to take into account
information in the reports related to possible amendments and adjustments;
526
(c) If, subsequent to such posting, circumstances arise that necessitate a change in a meeting date, to
revise the posting on its website and notify the Secretariat within one week of such change.
Decision XVII/48: Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVII/48 to convene the Eighteenth Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol in India with a firm date to be announced as soon as possible.
Decision XVIII/37: Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVIII/37 to convene the Nineteenth Meeting of the
MP DECISIONS
Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Montreal, Canada, from 17 to 21 September 2007.
ARTICLE 11
Decision XIX/30: Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIX/30 to convene the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol in Doha, Qatar, in 2008.
Decision XX/25: Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Twentieth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XX/25 to convene the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, and to announce a firm date for the meeting as soon as
possible.
Decision XXI/30: Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXI/30 to convene the Twenty-Second Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol at the seat of the Secretariat, in Nairobi, during October 2010, unless other
appropriate arrangements are made by the Secretariat in consultation with the Bureau.
Decision XXII/26: Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXII/26 to convene the Twenty-Third Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Bali, Indonesia, and to announce a firm date for the meeting as soon as
possible.
Decision XXIII/32: Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXIII/32 to convene the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Geneva, Switzerland, from 12 to 16 November 2012 unless other appropriate
arrangements are made by the Secretariat in consultation with the Bureau;
Decision XXIII/33: Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXIII/33 to convene the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol back to back with the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
Vienna Convention.
Decision XXIV/25: Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXIV/25 to convene the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Kyiv, Ukraine, in October 2013.
Decision XXV/21: Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXV/21 to convene the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol at the seat of the Secretariat, in Nairobi, or at any other United Nations venue, in
November 2014.
527
Decision XXVI/22: Twenty-Seventh and Twenty-Eighth Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
1. To convene the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, in November 2015;
2. To convene the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Kigali, Rwanda, in
November 2016.
MP DECISIONS
Comments made at the time of the adoption of decisions

ARTICLE 11
Following the adoption of the decisions by the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties, one representative, speaking
on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean countries, said that those countries were ready to work
collaboratively and constructively to put in place a comprehensive framework of multilateral cooperation to
enable them to comply with their obligations under the Montreal Protocol. Furthermore, he said, the economic
and social realities of developing countries had to be taken into account in all cases, including with regard to
requests for exemptions, and the countries of the region were gratified by the flexibility in that regard shown by
all parties. The countries of the region had made important advances in their implementation of the Protocol,
which had not only permitted them to benefit from international cooperation but also to serve as sources of
support and experience for other developing countries striving to succeed likewise in their efforts to protect the
ozone layer. They had, however, reiterated on numerous occasions their view that an increase in the budget for
institutional strengthening, which had been at the same level for 12 years, was indispensable to enable them to
comply with their growing obligations under the Protocol. Finally, he urged the Meeting of the Parties and the
Conference of the Parties to continue to facilitate the participation of the Latin American and Caribbean
countries by not allowing restrictions on translation or interpretation, which would impede their participation in
the negotiations and the adoption of decisions.
Decisions on declarations
Decision I/15: Helsinki Declaration
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/15 to take note of the Helsinki Declaration on the Protection
of the Ozone Layer adopted by all countries both Contracting and non-Contracting Parties present in Helsinki on
the occasion of the first Meeting of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol as it appears
in Appendix I to the Report of the First Meeting of the Parties [See Section 3.8 in this Handbook.]
Decision XI/1: Beijing Declaration on Renewed Commitment to the Protection of the Ozone
Layer
The Eleventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XI/1 to adopt the Beijing Declaration on Renewed
Commitment to the Protection of the Ozone Layer, as contained in annex I to the report of the Eleventh Meeting
of the Parties. [See Section 3.8 in this Handbook.]
Decision XII/17: Ouagadougou Declaration at the Twelfth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Twelfth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XII/17 to adopt the Ouagadougou Declaration at the Twelfth
Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, as contained in annex IV to the report of the Twelfth Meeting of
the Parties. [See Section 3.8 in this Handbook.]
Decision XIII/32: Colombo Declaration
The Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIII/32 to adopt the Colombo Declaration, on Renewed
Commitment to the Protection of the Ozone Layer to Mark the Forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable
Development, in 2002, the 15th Anniversary of the Montreal Protocol and the 10th Anniversary of the
Establishment of the Multilateral Fund, as contained in annex V to the report of the 13th Meeting of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol. [See Section 3.8 in this Handbook.]
528
Decision XVI/45: Declaration of 2007 as “International Year of the Ozone Layer”
Recalling that the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which constitutes the primary
legal instrument for saving the ozone layer, was signed in the city of Montreal, Canada, on 16 September 1987,
Recognizing that, to ensure the success of the Montreal Protocol, the Parties to the Protocol have demonstrated
commitment and decisive action by reducing the consumption of ozone-depleting substances since 1986 by 90
per cent,
MP DECISIONS
Considering that entry into force of the Montreal Protocol has resulted in:
ARTICLE 11
(a) A decline in the level of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere;
(b) The expectation that the ozone layer will recover by about 2050 if there is full compliance with the
provisions of the Montreal Protocol;
(c) The avoidance of further significant increases in ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth’s surface;
and, thereby, improved the expectations of human health and reduced environmental risks for life on Earth,
Gratified by the transcendent success of the Montreal Protocol,
Declares 2007 “International Year of the Ozone Layer”.
Decision XIX/31: Montreal Declaration
The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIX/31 to adopt the Montreal Declaration set out in annex
IV to the report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XX/26: Adoption of the Doha Declaration
The Twentieth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XX/26 to adopt the Doha Declaration, as set out in annex
VI to the report of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Decisions on rules of procedure
Decision I/1: Rules of procedure for Meetings of the Parties
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/1 to adopt the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol, as they appear in Annex I to the report of the First Meeting of the Parties [see Section 4
of this Handbook].
Decision II/19: Rules of procedure for meetings of the Parties
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/19 to amend paragraph 1 of rule 21 of the rules of
procedure, adopted at the First Meeting of the Parties, to include the following additional sentences:
“In electing its officers, the Meeting of the Parties shall have due regard to the principle of equitable
geographical representation. The offices of President and Rapporteur of the Meeting of the Parties shall normally
be subject to rotation among the five groups of States referred to in section I, paragraph 1, of General Assembly
resolution 2997 (XXVII) of 15/December 1972, by which the United Nations Environment Programme was
established.”
529
Decision III/14: Amendment of the Rules of Procedure
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/14 to amend the Rules of Procedure as follows:
(a) Rule 23 – delete paragraph 2;
(b) Rule 24 – delete the words “other than the President”, and substitute the words “of the Bureau.”
Decisions on the Open-ended Working Group
Decision I/5: Establishment of Open-ended Working Group

MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 11
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/5 to establish an open-ended working group to:
(a) Review the report of the four panels referred in Dec. I/3, and integrate them into one synthesis report;
(b) Based on (a) above, and taking into account the views expressed at the First Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol, prepare draft proposals for any amendments to the Protocol which would be needed.
Such proposals are to be circulated to the Parties in accordance with article 9 of the Vienna Convention
for the Protection of the Ozone Layer;
(c) To develop the workplans referred to in Dec. I/4; and
(d) To work out the modalities required by Dec. I/13.
Decision I/6: Meetings of Open-ended Working Group
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/6 to authorize the Secretariat to convene meetings of the
working group referred to in Dec. I/6.
Decision I/7: Participation by non-Parties
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/7 to authorize the Secretariat to invite non-Parties to
participate in the deliberations of the meetings of the working groups established by the Parties.
Decision II/15: Extension of the mandate of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/15 to continue the work of the Open-ended Working
Group of the Parties and to extend its mandate to consider, if necessary and in particular, the following topics:
(a) Further elaboration of any remaining details of the various components of the Financial Mechanism;
(b) Identification of the most appropriate modalities for the transfer of technologies designed for the
protection of the ozone layer;
(c) Co-operation with Parties that are developing countries for the implementation of the Protocol; and
(d) Problems arising under the trade provisions of the Protocol, in respect of both trade between Parties and
trade with non-Parties including issues related to free-trade zones; and to make recommendations to the
Third Meeting of the Parties.
Decision II/18: Meetings of the Open-ended Working Group
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/18 to authorize the Secretariat to convene, if necessary, up
to six meetings of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties prior to the Third Meeting of the Parties and to
invite non-Parties to participate in the deliberations of these meetings.
530
Decision III/11: Open-ended Working Group of the Parties
(a) to recall Article 5, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Amendment to the Montreal Protocol adopted by Decision
II/2 of the Parties at its Second Meeting and reiterate the mandate of the Open-ended Working Group of
the Parties in accordance with Decision II/15 and request that this work be intensified;
(b) should the results obtained by the assessment panels suggest the need to adjust or amend the Protocol, the
Working Group would make recommendations in time for consideration by the next meeting of the
Parties;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 11
(c) to endorse the selection of Mexico and the United Kingdom as co-Chairmen of the Open-ended Working
Group.
Decision VI/15: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VI/15 to endorse the selection of Mr. John Carstensen of
Denmark and Mr. N. R. Krishnan of India as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol for 1995.
Decision VII/36: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VII/36 to endorse the selection of Mr. S. Seebaluck
(Mauritius) and Ms. C. Fearnley (New Zealand) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol for 1996.
Decision VIII/27: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Eighth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. VIII/27 to endorse the selection of Ms. Catalina Mosler-
Garcia (Mexico) and Ms. Claire Fearnley (New Zealand) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 1997.
Decision IX/36: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Ninth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IX/36 to endorse the selection of Mr. V. Anand (India) and Mr.
Jukka Uosukainen (Finland) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol for 1998.
Decision X/5: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Tenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. X/5 to endorse the selection of Mr. Ibrahim Abdel Gelil
(Egypt) and Mr. Jukka Uosukainen (Finland) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol for 1999.
Decision XI/10: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Eleventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XI/10 to endorse the selection of Mr. John Ashe (Antigua
and Barbuda) and Mr. Milton Catelin (Australia) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol for 2000.
531
Decision XII/5: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Twelfth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XII/5 to endorse the selection of Mr. Milton Catelin
(Australia) and Mr. P.V. Jayakrishnan (India) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol for 200l.
Decision XIII/28: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIII/28 to endorse the selection of Mr. Milton Catelin
MP DECISIONS
(Australia) and Mr. Aloysius M. Kamperewera (Malawi) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the
ARTICLE 11
Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2002.
Decision XIV/42: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIV/42 to endorse the selection of Khaled Klaly (Syrian
Arab Republic) and Maria Nolan (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) as Co-Chairs of the
Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2003.
Decision XV/55: Co-chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XV/55 to endorse the selection of Mr. Jorge Leiva of Chile
and Mr. Janusz Kozakiewicz of Poland as co-chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol in 2004.
Decision XVI/41: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVI/41 to endorse the selection of Mr. David Okioga
(Kenya) and Mr. Tom Land (United States of America) as co-chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the
Decision XVII/46: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVII/46 to endorse the selection of Mr. Tom Land
(United States of America) and Mr. Nadzri Yahaya (Malaysia) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group
of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2006.
Decision XVIII/3: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XVIII/3 to endorse the selection of Ms. Marcia Levaggi
(Argentina) and Mr. Mikkel Aaman Sorensen (Denmark) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 2007.
Decision XIX/4: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIX/4 to endorse the selection of Mr. Mikkel Aaman
Sorensen (Denmark) and Ms. Judy Francis Beaumont (South Africa) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working
Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 2008.
532
Decision XX/23: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Twentieth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XX/23 to endorse the selection of Mr. Martin Sirois
(Canada) and Mr. Muhammad Maqsood Akhtar (Pakistan) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2009.
Decision XXI/31: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXI/31 to endorse the selection of Mr. Martin Sirois
MP DECISIONS
(Canada) and Mr. Fresnel Araujo (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working
ARTICLE 11
Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2010.
Decision XXII/25: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXII/25 to endorse the selection of Mr. Ndiaye
Cheikh Sylla (Senegal) and Ms. Gudi Alkemade (Netherlands) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group
of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2011.
Decision XXIII/20: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXIII/20 to endorse the selection of Mr. Ghazi Odat
(Jordan) and Ms. Gudi Alkemade (Netherlands) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties
Decision XXIV/23: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXIV/23 to endorse the selection of Mr. Patrick
McInerney (Australia) and Mr. Javier Camargo (Colombia) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2013.
Decision XXV/19: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXV/19 to endorse the selection of Richard
Mwendandu (Kenya) and Patrick McInerney (Australia) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the
Decision XXVI/20: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXVI/20 to endorse the selection of Mr. Paul Krajnik
(Austria) and Ms. Emma Rachmawaty (Indonesia) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the
Decision XXVII/14: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol
The Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XXVII/14 to endorse the selection of Mr. Paul
Krajnik (Austria) and Mr. Leslie Smith (Grenada) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties
533
Decisions on the Bureau
Decision I/2: Establishment of Bureau
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/2 to establish its Bureau to be composed of the President,
three Vice-Presidents and Rapporteur elected by each meeting of the Parties.
The Bureau shall meet at least once between meetings of the Parties to review the work of any working groups
established by the Parties during their meetings, to consider other topics on the Agenda of the next meeting of
the Parties and to review the documents prepared by the Secretariat for meetings of the Parties to facilitate the
work of these meetings.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 11
Decision IV/22: Bureau of the Montreal Protocol
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/22 to take note of the reports of the first and second
meetings of the Bureau of the Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, contained in documents
UNEP/OzL.Pro.3/Bur/1/3 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.3/Bur/2/3.
Decision V/22: Bureau of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/22 to take note of the report of the first meeting of the Bureau
of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
534
Section 2.3 Decisions of the Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Article 12)
Decision II/7: Montreal Protocol Handbook
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/7 to invite the Executive Director to prepare as soon as
possible a Montreal Protocol Handbook setting out the Protocol as adjusted, the Protocol as adjusted and
amended and the decisions of the Parties that relate to its interpretation and other material relevant to its
operation, and to update the Handbook, as necessary, after each meeting of the Parties.
Decision III/4: Montreal Protocol Handbook
MP DECISIONS
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/4 to welcome the efforts of the Secretariat in completing the
ARTICLE 12
Montreal Protocol Handbook, which was prepared by the Secretariat in accordance with Decision II/7 of the
Second Meeting of the Parties, and to request the Secretariat after further editing, taking into account the
comments made in paragraph 18 of the Report of the Preparatory Meeting for the Third Meeting of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.3/Prep/2), to distribute the Handbook to all the Parties to the Protocol
and the Convention in the official languages of the United Nations as soon as possible.
Decision XII/16: Organization of Ozone Secretariat and Multilateral Fund meetings
The Twelfth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XII/16 that when meetings organized by the Ozone
Secretariat and the Multilateral Fund secretariat are organized back-to-back, the two secretariats should
coordinate arrangements to the greatest extent possible and, where possible and advantageous to the Parties,
should seek to negotiate joint agreements with the hosting venue.
Decision XIII/31: Appointment of the Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat
The Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XIII/31 to request the United Nations Environment
Programme and United Nations Headquarters to complete the process for the earliest possible appointment of the
Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat.
535
Decision I/14: Financial arrangements
The First Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. I/14 with regard to financial arrangements:
A. (a) to establish a United Nations Trust Fund in accordance with the Financial Regulations and Rules of
the United Nations and in accordance with the General Procedures governing operations of the Fund
of the United Nations Environment Programme;
(b) the Protocol Trust Fund shall be administered by the Executive Director of UNEP and shall finance
MP DECISIONS
expenditures approved by the Parties and shall receive the contributions of Parties to the Protocol;
ARTICLE 13
(c) to that end the Meeting requests the Executive Director to secure the necessary consents of the
Secretary General of the United Nations and the Governing Council of UNEP;
(d) to adopt the terms of reference of the Trust Fund in Annex II of the report of the First Meeting of the
Parties; [See Section 3.7 of this Handbook]
(e) the contributions of the Parties shall be in the form of voluntary contributions according to the
formula in Annex III of the report of the First Meeting of the Parties;
(f) the Meeting calls on all Parties to pay their contributions to the Trust Fund in advance of the period
to which they relate;
(g) to approve a total budget of US$1,580,000 for the biennium 1990–1991, the details of the approved
budget are presented in annex IV to the report of the First Meeting of the Parties.;
B. The States non-Parties and the non-Contributing Parties to the Trust Fund are encouraged to make
voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund.
Decision II/17: Budget
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/17 with regard to the budget to adopt the system of rolling
biennial budgets, and to approve a total revised budget of $3,400,000 for 1990, a total revised budget for 1991 of
$2,423,000 and a total budget for 1992 of $2,225,000.
Decision III/21: Budgets and financial matters
The Third Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. III/21 regarding budgets and financial matters:
(a) to request the Secretariat to submit as soon as possible to all Parties certified and audited accounts of the
Montreal Protocol Trust Fund for the expenditures under the Fund for 1990 financial year;
(b) to request the Secretariat to submit to the Parties the certified and audited accounts for 1989 of the
Interim Ozone Secretariat;
(c) to request the Secretariat to submit certified and audited accounts for subsequent years prior to regular
meetings of the Parties;
(d) to emphasize that expenditures incurred due to recommendations by the Bureau should only be met either
within the budget adopted by the Parties for that year or by other additional contributions made towards
these expenditures;
(e) to emphasize that it is essential to avoid increases in already adopted budgets in the years which they
relate;
536
(f) to urge all Parties to pay their outstanding contributions promptly and to also pay their future
contributions promptly and in full in accordance with the terms of reference and the formula for
contributions as attached to Annex II to the report of the Third Meeting of the Parties;
(g) to adopt the final budget for 1992 of US$2,278,645, and for 1993 of US$2,398,990, as set out in Annex I
to the report of the Third Meeting of the Parties.
Decision IV/19: Budgets and financial matters
MP DECISIONS
1. to note the financial reports on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol for 1990 and 1991, and on the
ARTICLE 13
Secretariat for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol;
2. to urge all Parties to pay their outstanding contributions promptly and also to pay their future
XI to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties;
3. to adopt the revised budgets for 1992 of US$2,862,855 and for 1993 of US$2,702,390, and the proposed
budget for 1994 of US$3,369,090, as set out in Annex XII to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the
Parties;
4. to extend the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer from 31
March 1993 to 31 March 1995.
Decision V/21: Budgets and financial matters
1. To note the financial reports on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol and the Secretariat for the
Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol for 1992;
III to the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties;
3. To adopt the proposed budgets for the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol of US$ 2,822,735 for 1994
and of US$ 3,416,550 for 1995, as set out in Annex IV to the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties;
4. To urge the Secretariat to furnish the Parties with an estimation of the current year’s needs and in the
same format the actual expenditures of the previous year so that the Parties will have a good
understanding of the Secretariat’s budgetary requirements.
Decision VI/17: Budgets and financial matters
1. To take note of the financial report on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol for 1993;
III to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties;
3. To approve the revised budgets for the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol of US$ 3,048,735 for 1994
and of US$ 3,699,050 for 1995 and to adopt the proposed budget of US$ 2,818,215 for 1996, as set out in
Annex IV to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties.
537
Decision VII/37: Financial matters: financial report and budgets
1. To take note of the financial report on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol for biennium 1994–1995
and expenditures for 1994 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.7/4);
contributions promptly and in full, in accordance with the formula for contributions by Parties as set out
in Annex VII to the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties;
MP DECISIONS
3. To confirm the budget for the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol of $2,818,215 for 1996 as approved
ARTICLE 13
by the Sixth Meeting of the Parties and to approve the budget of $3,301,290 for 1997, as set out in
Annex VIII to the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties;
4. (a) To approve the adoption of the new United Nations scale of assessments, which came into effect
through the General Assembly resolution 49/19 B of 3 March 1995 for Members of the United
Nations and through administrative circular ST/ADM/SER.B/451 of 4 January 1995 for non-
Members of the United Nations, as the basis for calculating individual Parties’ levels of
contributions to the Montreal Protocol and the Multilateral Fund trust funds in 1996 and beyond;
(b) To authorize the Treasurer to recalculate the future individual Parties’ levels of contributions to the
Montreal Protocol and the Multilateral Fund trust funds, using the scale of assessments as updated
and adopted within the United Nations system;
5. To encourage Parties not operating under Article 5 to continue offering financial assistance to their
members in the Assessment Panels for their continued participation in the assessment activities under the
Protocol;
6. To request additional voluntary contributions from Parties in support of:
(a) Increased participation of Assessment Panel members from developing countries in Assessment
Panels and Technical Options Committees;
(b) Information materials for the celebration of the International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone
Layer;
7. To request:
(a) Countries having Junior Programme Officer (JPO) programmes to consider funding the post of
Programme Officer (Information Systems) (post 1105) through their JPO programmes;
(b) The United Nations Environment Programme to fund the post of Programme Officer (Information
Systems) from the programme support costs given to it by the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund.
Decision VIII/28: Financial Matters: financial report and budgets
1. To take note of the financial report on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol for 1995 as contained in
document UNEP/OzL.Pro.8/4;
in annex VI to the report of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties;
538
3. To approve the revised budgets for the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol of US$2,818,215 for 1996
and US$3,542,263 for 1997 and the proposed budget of US$3,679,704 for 1998, as set out in annex VII
to the report of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties;
members in the Assessment Panels for their continued participation in the assessment activities under the
Protocol;
5. To request additional voluntary contributions from Parties in support of:
(a) Increased participation of Assessment Panel members from developing countries and countries with
MP DECISIONS
economies in transition in Assessment Panels and Technical Options Committees;
ARTICLE 13
(b) Information materials for the celebration of the International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone
Layer;
6. To request the Secretariat to report to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties on the utilizition of the funds for
the participation of experts from developing countries and countries with economies in transition in the
meetings of the Assessment Panels and the Technical Options Committees;
7. Request the Executive Dirctor of UNEP to ensure that the 13 per cent programme support costs charged
to the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol are used fully in support of the Protocol and its Secretariat,
and to report to the next Meeting of the Parties on the ways in which the 13 per cent has been used for the
benefit of the Convention and its Secretariat;
8. To request the Executive Director if UNEP to extend the duration of the Trust Fund for the Montreal
Protocol until 31 December 2000, subject to the approval of the UNEP Governing Council.
Decision IX/37: Financial matters: financial report and budgets
1. To take note of the financial report on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol for 1996 as contained in
in annex VIII to the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties;
3. To approve the proposed budget of US$3,679,704 for 1998 and US$3,615,740 for 1999, as set out in
annex IX to the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties;
members in the three Assessment Panels and their subsidiary bodies for their continued participation in
the assessment activities under the Protocol;
5. Having in mind the terms of reference agreed to in annex V to the report of the Eighth Meeting of the
Parties [see Section 3.3 of this Handbook] and approved in decision VIII/19, in particular regarding the
size and balance of the Assessment Panels and their subsidiary bodies:
(a) To express its desire to move towards a situation when all experts of assessment panels and their
subsidiary bodies from developing countries and CEIT could be supported to take part in their
meetings;
(b) To note that the budget for 1998 and 1999 provides a reasonable expectation that no request from
any developing country and CEIT expert in these bodies will be denied;
539
6. To request the Secretariat to report to the Tenth Meeting of the Parties on the utilization of the funds for
the participation of experts from developing countries and countries with economies in transition in the
meetings of the Assessment Panels and their subsidiary bodies;
7. To take note of the report of UNEP on the ways in which the 13 per cent programme support costs has
been used; to request the Executive Director of UNEP to ensure that this charge to the Trust Fund for the
Montreal Protocol is used fully in support of the Protocol and its Secretariat; and to submit a final report
to the Tenth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision X/30: Financial matters: financial report and budgets

MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 13
1. To take note of the financial report on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol for 1997, as contained in
contributions promptly and in full, in accordance with the formula for contributions by Parties, as set out
in annex VIII to the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties (document UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/12), for the
year 1999, and for the year 2000 in annex IV to the report of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties;
3. To approve the budget of $3,615,740 for 1999 and proposed budget of $3,679,704 for 2000, as set out in
annex III to the report of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties;
members in the three assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies for their continued participation in the
assessment activities under the Protocol.
Decision XI/21: Financial matters: financial report and budgets
1. To note with appreciation the exemplary financial management by the Secretariat over many years;
3. To approve the budget of 3,679,679 United States dollars for 2000, and the proposed budget of 3,679,679
United States dollars for 2001, as set out in annex VIII to the report of the Eleventh Meeting of the
Parties;
contributions promptly and in full, in accordance with the formula for contributions by Parties, as set out
in annex IV to the report of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.10/9), for the year 2000,
and for the year 2001 as set out in annex IX to the report of the Eleventh Meeting;
5. To draw down an amount of 675,000 United States dollars from the unspent balance for the purpose of
reducing it, thereby ensuring that the contributions to be paid by the Parties amount to 3,004,679 United
States dollars for 2001;
6. To request the Executive Secretary, when making budget proposals for 2002, 2003 and 2004, to draw
down the amount specified in paragraph 5 above from the unspent balances for those years;
members in the three Assessment Panels and their subsidiary bodies for their continued participation in
the assessment activities under the Protocol;
8. To review the status of reserves at the Meeting of the Parties in the year 2003.
540
Decision XII/15: Financial matters: Financial report and budgets
2. To approve the revised budget of $4,099,385 for 2001, as contained in annex II to the report of the
Twelfth Meeting of the Parties, recalling paragraph 5 of decision XI/21 of the Eleventh Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol aimed at ensuring that contributions to be paid by the Parties should
amount to $3,004,679 for the year 2001;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 13
3. To take note of the proposed budget of $4,406,276 for 2002, as contained in annex II to the report of the
Twelfth Meeting of the Parties, taking into account paragraph 6 of decision XI/21, which calls for the
drawdown of $675,000 from the unspent balance for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003;
4. To urge all Parties with outstanding contributions for prior years to make every effort to pay them
promptly and fully;
5. To urge all Parties to pay their annual contributions promptly and in full, ahead of the time at which the
contributions are needed, in accordance with the formula for contributions by Parties for the years 2001
and 2002 as set out in annex III to the report of the Twelfth Meeting of the Parties;
6. To encourage Parties not operating under Article 5 to continue offering assistance to their members in the
three assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies for their continued participation in the assessment
activities under the Protocol;
7. To note the provision of assistance for the participation of Article 5 experts in the assessment panels and
their subsidiary bodies;
8. To note that, in future, the establishment and classification of posts in the Ozone Secretariat shall be
presented to the Parties in advance for consideration and approval before they are submitted for
processing according to United Nations recruitment and promotion procedures.
Decision XIII/30: Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets
1. To welcome the continuing excellent management by the Secretariat of the finances of the Montreal
Protocol Trust Fund;
2. To take note of the financial report of the Trust Fund for 2000, as contained in document
UNEP/OzL.Pro.13/4;
3. To approve the budget for the Trust Fund in the amount of $3,907,646 for 2002 and take note of the
proposed budget of $3,763,034 for 2003, as set out in Annex III of the report of the 13th Meeting of the
Parties;
4. To draw down an amount of $675,000 in years 2002 and 2003 from the Fund balance for the purpose of
reducing that balance in accordance with decision XI/21, paragraphs 5 and 6;
5. To draw down, further, from the unspent balance for the year 2000, an amount of $740,000 in 2002 and
$250,869 in 2003;
6. To ensure, as a consequence of the draw-downs referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, that the
contributions to be paid by the Parties amount to $2,492,646 for 2002 and $2,837,165 for 2003, as set out
in Annex IV of the report of the 13th Meeting of the Parties. The contributions of the individual Parties
shall be as listed in Annex IV;
541
7. To urge all Parties to pay their contributions promptly and in full;
8. To encourage non-Article 5 Parties to continue offering assistance to their members in the three
assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies for their continued participation in the assessment activities
under the Protocol;
their subsidiary bodies;
10. To review, at its 14th Meeting, on the basis of a working document prepared by the Secretariat, the
continuing growth in the operating surplus and interest being accumulated by the Trust Fund with a view
to identifying the optimal way in which to balance the Protocol’s operational funds.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 13
Decision XIV/41: Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets
1. To welcome the continuing excellent management by the Secretariat of the finances of the Montreal
Protocol Trust Fund and the very good quality documentation on it furnished to the meeting;
2. To take note with appreciation of the financial statements of the Trust Fund for the biennium 2000-2001
and the report on the actual expenditures for 2001 as compared to the approvals for that year, as contained
in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/4;
3. To approve the budget for the Trust Fund in the amount of $3,855,220 for 2003 and take note of the
proposed budget of $3,921,664 for 2004, as set out in Annex III of the report of the fourteenth Meeting of
the Parties;
4. To firstly draw down an amount of $675,000 in years 2003 and 2004 from the Fund balance for the
purpose of reducing that balance in accordance with Decision XI/21, paragraphs 5 and 6;
5. To secondly draw down further from the unspent balance from year 2000, an amount of $250,869 in
2003;
6. To thirdly draw down further from the unspent balance from year 2001, an amount of $400,000 in 2003;
$686,000 in 2004 and $100,869 in year 2005;
7. To fourthly draw down further from the annually accruing interest income, an amount of $250,000 in
2003 and another $250,000 in 2004;
8. To ensure, as a consequence of the draw-downs referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, that the
contributions to be paid by the Parties amount to $2,279,351 for 2003 and $2,310,664 for 2004, as set out
in Annex III of the report of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties. The contributions of the individual
Parties shall be as listed in Annex IV;
9. To urge all Parties to pay their outstanding contributions, as well as their future contributions promptly
and in full;
under the Protocol;
the subsidiary bodies;
12. To amend paragraph 4 of the terms of reference for the administration of the Trust Fund for the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer by substituting 25 per cent by 22 per cent in
accordance with the United Nations General Assembly resolution through its decision A/RES/55/5 B-F of
23 December 2000;
542
13. To request the Executive Director to extend the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund until 31 December 2010;
and
14. To invite the Parties to provide comments to the document UNEP/OzL.Pro/14/INF.3 and ask the
Secretariat to keep the information current.
Decision XV/52: Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets
1. To welcome the continuing excellent management by the Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol Trust
Fund;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 13
2. To take note of the financial report of the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol for 2002 as contained in
3. To approve the budget for the Trust Fund of the Montreal Protocol in the amount of $5,185,353 for 2004,
which includes the following:
(a) A provision in the amount of $500,000 to enable the Ozone Secretariat to facilitate the review of the
financial mechanism as provided in decision XIII/3 and decision XV/47;
(b) A provision of $596,000 for the extraordinary Meeting of the Parties, including funds for the
attendance of members and experts of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee to its
special meeting as called for in decision XV/56;
4. To draw down from the Trust Fund balance the amount of $2,906,002 in 2004, which consists of the
following:
(a) $675,000 in accordance with decision XI/21, paragraphs 5 and 6;
(b) $686,000 in accordance with decision XIV/41, paragraph 6;
(c) $250,000 in accordance with decision XIV/41, paragraph 7;
(d) $1,295,002 to ensure that the contributions of the Parties in 2004 are maintained at the 2003 levels;
5. To note that the amount of $1,295,002 under paragraph 4 (d) above, which includes the
$500,000 mentioned in paragraph 3 (a) and the $596,000 mentioned in paragraph 3 (b) above, will be
drawn down in view of the non-recurrent nature of the expenditure approved in 2004 for the review of the
financial mechanism and the expenses of the extraordinary Meeting of the Parties in order to avoid an
additional contribution by the Parties corresponding to that amount in 2004;
6. To establish the understanding that the amount of $500,000 mentioned in paragraph 3 (a) above is an
indicative cost approved as a contingency provision in the budget for 2004 which will be committed once
the Steering Panel on the study on the management of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol
has determined an actual cost estimate upon the proposals of the Secretariat;
7. To request the Secretariat to approach appropriate United Nations authorities in order to seek a reduction
of the standard rate of programme support costs to be charged to the provision of $500,000 for the study
of the financial mechanism;
8. To take note of the proposed budget of $3,746,861 for 2005 as set forth in annex VI of the present report;
9. To further draw down from the Trust Fund balance for the purpose of reducing that balance in 2005 in
accordance with decision XIV/41, paragraph 6;
543
10. To continue to draw down the amount of $250,000 from the interest income accruing to the Fund, to be
applied in 2005;
11. To draw down from the Trust Fund balance the amount of $800,000, to be applied in 2005;
12. To ensure that, as a consequence of the draw-downs referred to in paragraphs 4, 5 and 9 to 11 above, the
contributions to be paid by the Parties in 2004 amount to $2,279,351 and $2,595,992 for 2005, as set forth
in annex VI of the present report. The contributions of the individual Parties shall be as listed in annex
VII to the present report;
contributions promptly and in full, in accordance with the formula for contributions by the Parties;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 13
under the Protocol;
the subsidiary bodies.
Decision XVI/44: Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets
Recalling decision XV/52 on financial matters,
Noting the financial report on the Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer for the biennium 2002–2003,
Recognizing that voluntary contributions are an essential complement for the effective implementation of the
Montreal Protocol;
Welcoming the continued efficient management demonstrated by the Secretariat of the finances of the Montreal
Noting that the presence of a surplus and agreement by the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to draw down further
from the fund balance has permitted the Secretariat to present a balanced budget for the year 2004;
Determined that, in the future, the budgets and the terms of reference for the administration of the Trust Fund for
the Montreal Protocol on Substance that Deplete the Ozone Layer should be fully respected;
1. To approve the revised 2004 budget in the amount of $5,424,913 and the proposed 2005 budget for the
Trust Fund in the amount of $4,514,917 and to take note of the proposed budget of $4,580,403 for 2006,
as set out in annex III to the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties;
2. To authorize the Secretariat to use the additional amount not exceeding $239,560 in the year 2004 from
the fund balance of the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund to cover costs arising from additional activities in
2004 as decided by the extraordinary Meeting of the Parties in March 2004;
3. Also to authorize the Secretariat to use an amount not exceeding $1,017,263 in the year 2005 from the
fund balance of the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund;
4. To approve, as a consequence of the draw-downs referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, total

contributions to be paid by the Parties at $2,279,351 for 2004 and $3,497,654 for 2005, as set out in
annex IV to the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties;
5. Also to approve that the contributions of individual Parties shall be listed in annex IV to the report of the
Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties;
544
6. To authorize the Secretariat to maintain a constant operating cash reserve of the estimated annual planned
expenditures that will be used to meet the final expenditures under the trust fund. In 2005, Parties shall be
asked to contribute 7.5 per cent of the approved budget for 2005 and, in 2006, the operating cash reserve
will increase to 15 per cent;
7. To express its concern over delays in payment of the agreed contributions by Parties, contrary to the
provisions of the terms of reference for the administration of the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of those terms of reference;
8. To urge all Parties to pay their contributions promptly and in full and further to urge Parties that have not
done so to pay their contributions for prior years as soon as possible;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 13
9. To encourage Parties, non-Parties, and other stakeholders to contribute financially and with other means
to assist members in the three assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies for their continued
participation in the assessment activities under the Protocol;
10. Also to encourage Parties, non-Parties, and other stakeholders to contribute financially and with other
means to assist in the provision of financial assistance to the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee;
11. To invite Parties to notify the Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol of all contributions made to the
Montreal Protocol Trust Fund at the time such payments are made;
12. In accordance with rule 14 of the rules of procedure, to request the Executive Secretary to provide Parties
with an indication of the financial implications of draft decisions which cannot be met from existing
resources within the budget of the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund;
13. To request that the Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol ensure the implementation of the decisions
adopted by the Meeting of the Parties as approved, within the budgets and the availability of financial
resources in the Trust Fund;
14. Further to request the Secretariat to inform the Open-ended Working Group on all sources of income
received, including the reserve and fund balance and interest, as well as actual and projected expenditures
and commitments, and to request the Executive Secretary to provide an indicative report on all
expenditures against the agreed budget lines;
15. Also to request the Open-ended Working Group to keep under review the financial information provided
by the Secretariat, including the timeliness and transparency of that information.
Decision XVII/42: Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets
Recalling decision XVI/44 on financial matters,
Noting the financial report on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer for the biennium 2004–2005 ended 31 December 2004,
Montreal Protocol;
1. To approve the 2006 budget for the Trust Fund in the amount of $4,678,532 and to take note of the
proposed budget of $4,690,667 for 2007, as set out in annex IV to the report of the seventh meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the
Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer;
545
2. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down $586,668 in 2006;
3. To approve, as a consequence of the draw-downs referred to in paragraph 2 above, total contributions to

be paid by the Parties of $4,091,864 for 2006 and note the contributions of $4,690,667 for 2007, as set
out in annex V to the report of the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna
Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer;
4. Also to approve that the contributions of individual Parties shall be listed in annex V to the report of the
seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer and the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 13
expenditures that will be used to meet the final expenditures under the Trust Fund. In 2005, Parties
contributed 7.5 per cent of the approved budget for 2005; in 2006, the operating cash reserve will increase
to 8.3 per cent, and in 2007 it will increase to 15 per cent;
provisions in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the terms of reference for the administration of the Trust Fund for the
to assist members of the three assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies with their continued
9. Also to encourage Parties, non-Parties and other stakeholders to contribute financially and with other
means to assist in the provision of financial assistance to the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee;
12. To request that the Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol ensure the implementation of the decisions
adopted by the Meeting of the Parties as approved, within the budgets and the availability of financial
resources in the Trust Fund;
13. To allow the Secretariat to make transfers up to 20 per cent from one main appropriation line of the
approved budget to other main appropriation lines;
14. To request the Secretariat to inform the Open-ended Working Group on all sources of income received,
including the reserve and fund balance and interest, as well as actual and projected expenditures and
commitments, and to request the Executive Secretary to provide an indicative report on all expenditures
against budget lines;
546
Decision XVIII/5: Financial matters: financial reports and budgets
Recalling decision XVII/42 on financial matters,
Layer for the biennium 2004–2005 ended 31 December 2005;
Protocol;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 13
Welcoming the continued efficient management demonstrated by the Secretariat of the finances of the Trust
Fund;
1. To approve the 2007 budget for the Trust Fund in the amount of $4,671,933 and to take note of the
proposed 2008 budget of $4,542,563, as set out in annex I to the report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the
Parties;
2. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down $395,000 in 2007;
3. To approve, as a consequence of the draw-down referred to in paragraph 2 above, total contributions to be

paid by the Parties at $4,276,933 for 2007 and note the contribution of $4,542,563 for 2008, as set out in
annex I to the report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
4. Also to approve that the contributions of individual Parties shall be listed in annex II to the report of the
Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties;
expenditures that will be used to meet the final expenditures under the trust fund. In 2006, the Parties
agree to maintain the approved budget for the operating cash reserve for 2007 at 8.3 per cent and
contribute 3 per cent of the budget for the cash operating reserve in 2008, after which time the Parties will
strive to achieve and maintain an operating cash reserve of 15 per cent;
provisions of the terms of reference for the administration of the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of those terms of reference;
to assist members in the three assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies for their continued
11. To request that the Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol ensure its implementation of secretariat-related
decisions adopted by the Meeting of the Parties as approved, within the budgets and the availability of
financial resources in the Trust Fund;
12. In recognition of the likely increased expenses during 2007 related to activities surrounding the
celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol, to allow the Secretariat to have full
547
flexibility, in 2007 only, to make transfers between budget lines that it believes are necessary to fund
celebration-related activities, including lines 5200 (reporting), 5304 (International Ozone Day, twentieth
anniversary activities) 5401 (hospitality) and 3300 (support for participation). After 2007, the normal
allowance to transfer funds of up to 20 per cent from one main appropriation line of the approved budget
to other main appropriation lines will apply. In addition, the Secretariat is authorized to fund the above-
noted lines with any unspent participation funds which have accrued or may accrue as a result of travel
cancellations by participants;
13. To request the Secretariat to inform the Open-ended Working Group on all sources of income received,
including the reserve and fund balance and interest, as well as actual and projected expenditures and
commitments and to request the Executive Secretary to provide an indicative report on all expenditures
MP DECISIONS
against budget lines;

ARTICLE 13
Decision XIX/5: Financial matters: financial reports and budgets
1. To approve the 2008 budget for the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer in the amount of $4,618,880 and to take note of the proposed 2009 budget of $4,887,129, as
set out in annex I to the report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties;
2. To authorize the Ozone Secretariat to draw down $341,947 in 2008;
3. To approve, as a consequence of the draw-down referred to in paragraph 2 above, total contributions to be

paid by the Parties of $4,276,933 for 2008;
4. That the contributions of individual Parties shall be listed in annex II to the report of the Nineteenth
5. To authorize the Ozone Secretariat to maintain a constant operating cash reserve of the estimated annual
planned expenditures that will be used to meet the final expenditures under the trust fund. The Parties
agree to increase the approved budget for the operating cash reserve for 2008 to 11.3 per cent and to
contribute 3.7 per cent of the budget for the cash operating reserve in 2009, after which time the Parties
will strive to maintain an operating cash reserve of 15 per cent;
6. To express its concern over delays in payment of agreed contributions by Parties, contrary to the
7. To urge all Parties to pay their contributions promptly and in full and also to urge Parties that have not
8. To encourage Parties, non-Parties and other stakeholders to contribute financially and with other means to
assist members of the three assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies with their continued
9. To invite Parties to notify the Ozone Secretariat of all contributions made to the Montreal Protocol Trust
Fund at the time such payments are made;
10. To request the Executive Secretary, in accordance with rule 14 of the rules of procedure, to provide
Parties with an indication of the financial implications of draft decisions whose implementation cannot be
funded from existing resources within the budget of the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund;
11. To request the Ozone Secretariat to ensure its implementation of secretariat-related decisions adopted by
the Meeting of the Parties as approved and within the budget and the availability of financial resources in
the Trust Fund;
548
12. To request the Ozone Secretariat to inform the Open-ended Working Group on all sources of income
received, including the reserve and fund balance and interest as well as actual and projected expenditures
and commitments, and to request the Executive Secretary to provide an indicative report on all
expenditures against budget lines;
13. To request the Open-ended Working Group to keep under review the financial information provided by
the Ozone Secretariat, including the timeliness and transparency of that information.
Decision XX/20: Montreal Protocol financial matters: financial reports and budgets
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 13
Recalling decision XIX/5 on financial matters,
Montreal Protocol,
Welcoming the continued excellent management by the Secretariat of the finances of the Trust Fund for the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
1. To take note with appreciation of the financial statement of the Trust Fund for the biennium 2006–2007
ended 31 December 2007 and the report by the Secretariat on the actual expenditures for 2007 as
compared to the approvals for that year;
2. To approve the revised 2008 budget for the Trust Fund in the amount of $4,679,658, and the 2009 budget
in the amount of $5,258,828 and to take note of the proposed budget of $4,843,983 for 2010, as set out in
annex IV to the report of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention
for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer;
3. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down $981,895 in 2009 and note the proposed drawdown of
$567,050 in 2010;

be paid by the Parties of $4,276,933 for 2009 and to note the contributions of $4,276,933 for 2010, as set
out in annex V to the report of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna
Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the
5. Also to approve that the contributions of individual Parties for 2009 shall be listed in annex V to the
report of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection
of the Ozone Layer and the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
6. To authorize the Secretariat to maintain a constant operating cash reserve at 15 per cent of the estimated
annual planned expenditures that will be used to meet the final expenditures under the Trust Fund;
7. To express its concern over delays in payment of agreed contributions by Parties, contrary to the
to assist members of the three assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies with their continued
549
10. To invite Parties to notify the Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol of all contributions made to the Trust
Fund at the time such payments are made;
11. To request the Executive Secretary, in accordance with rule 14 of the rules of procedure, to provide
Parties with an indication of the financial implications of draft decisions which cannot be met from
existing resources within the budget of the Trust Fund;
12. To request the Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol to ensure the implementation of Secretariat-related
decisions adopted by the Meeting of the Parties as approved, within the budgets and the availability of
financial resources in the Trust Fund;
MP DECISIONS
13. To request the Secretariat to inform the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal
ARTICLE 13
Protocol on all sources of income received, including the reserve and fund balance and interest, as well as
actual and projected expenditures and commitments, and to request the Executive Secretary to provide an
indicative report on all expenditures against budget lines;
14. To request the Open-ended Working Group to keep under review the financial information provided by
the Secretariat, including the timeliness and transparency of that information;
15. To request the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme to extend the Trust
Fund until 31 December 2015.
Decision XXI/32: Financial matters: Financial reports and budgets
Recalling decision XX/20 on financial matters,
Layer for the biennium 2008-2009 ended 31 December 2008;
Montreal Protocol;
1. To approve the revised 2009 budget in the amount of $5,329,104, and the 2010 budget in the amount of
$5,400,398 and to take note of the proposed budget of $4,935,639 for 2011, as set out in annex I to the
report of the Twenty-First meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer;
2. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down $1,123,465 in 2010 and note the proposed drawdown of
$658,706 in 2011;

be paid by the Parties of $4,276,933 for 2010 and note the contributions of $4,276,933 for 2011, as set
out in annex II to the report of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer;
4. Also to approve that the contributions of individual Parties for 2010 shall be listed in annex II to the
report of the Twenty-first Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer;
5. To authorize the Secretariat to maintain the operating cash reserve at 15 per cent of the 2010 budget to be
used to meet the final expenditures under the Trust Fund;
550
6. To urge all Parties to pay their outstanding contributions as well as their future contributions promptly
and in full;
7. To request the Ozone Secretariat, in cases where the Open-ended Working Group and the Multilateral
Fund Executive Committee meetings are held back to back, to consult with the Multilateral Fund
Secretariat, with a view to selecting the meeting location which is the most cost effective, taking into
account the budgets of both secretariats.
Decision XXII/21: Administrative and financial matters: financial reports and budgets
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 13
Recalling decision XXI/32 on financial matters,
Taking note of the financial report on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer for the biennium 2008–2009, ended 31 December 2009,
Montreal Protocol,
Welcoming the continued efficient management by the Secretariat of the finances of the Montreal Protocol Trust
Fund,
1. To approve the revised 2010 budget in the amount of 4,955,743 United States dollars and the 2011 budget
in the amount of $4,835,740 and to take note of the proposed budget of $4,943,796 for 2012, as set out in
annex I to the report of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer;
2. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down $558,807 in 2011 and to note the proposed drawdown of
$666,863 in 2012;
3. To approve, as a consequence of the drawdowns referred to in paragraph 2 above, total contributions to

be paid by the parties of $4,276,933 for 2011 and to note the contributions of $4,276,933 for 2012, as set
out in annex II to the report of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties;
4. That the contributions of individual parties for 2011 shall be listed in annex II to the report of the Twenty-
Second Meeting of the Parties;
6. To urge all parties to pay both their outstanding contributions and their future contributions promptly and
in full.
Decision XXIII/17: Administrative and financial matters: financial reports and budgets
Recalling decision XXII/21 on financial matters,
Ozone Layer for the biennium 2010-2011, ended 31 December 2010,
Montreal Protocol,
Fund,
551
1. To approve the 2012 budget in the amount of $4,949,012 United States dollars and to take note of the
proposed budget of $4,896,659 for 2013, as set out in annex IV to the report of the ninth meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol;
2. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down $672,079 in 2012 and to note the proposed drawdown of
$619,726 in 2013;

be paid by the parties of $4,276,933 for 2012 and to note the contributions of $4,276,933 for 2013, as set
out in annex V to the report of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna
MP DECISIONS
Convention and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
ARTICLE 13
4. That the contributions of individual parties for 2012 shall be listed in annex IV to the report of the ninth
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the
Parties;
6. To encourage parties, non-parties and other stakeholders to contribute financially and with other means to
7. To urge all parties to pay both their outstanding contributions and their future contributions promptly and
in full.
Decision XXIV/24: Financial reports of the trust funds and budgets for the Montreal Protocol
Recalling decision XXIII/17 on financial matters,
Ozone Layer for the biennium 2010-2011, ended 31 December 2011,
Montreal Protocol,
Fund,
1. To approve the revision of the 2012 budget in the amount of $4,920,762 United States dollars and the
budget of $4,927,420 for 2013, as set out in annex I to the report of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
2. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down $643,829 in 2012 and $650,487 in 2013, and to note the
proposed drawdown of $493,049 in 2014;

be paid by the parties of $4,276,933 for 2012 and 2013, and to note the contributions of $4,276,933 for
2014, as set out in annex II to the report of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol;
4. That the contributions of individual parties for 2012 and 2013 shall be listed in annex II to the report of
the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties;
552
5. To reaffirm an operating cash reserve at a level of 15 per cent of the annual budget to be used to meet the
final expenditures under the Trust Fund;
6. To request the Secretariat to indicate, in future financial reports of the trust funds for the Vienna
Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol, the amounts under “Total
reserves and fund balances” which are associated with contributions that have not yet been received;
MP DECISIONS
8. To note with concern that a number of parties have not paid their contribution for 2011 and prior years,
ARTICLE 13
and to urge those parties to pay both their outstanding contributions and their future contributions
promptly and in full;
9. To authorize the Executive Secretary to enter into discussions with any party whose contributions are
outstanding for two or more years with a view to finding a way forward, and to request that the Executive
Secretary report to the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties on the outcome of the discussions;
10. To reaffirm the importance of the full participation of non-Article 5 parties and Article 5 parties in the
activities of the Meeting of the Parties;
11. To encourage parties that are still receiving hard copies of meeting documents to access such
documentation through the Ozone Secretariat website instead.
Decision XXV/20: Financial reports of the trust funds and budgets for the Montreal Protocol
Recalling decision XXIV/24 on financial matters,
Ozone Layer for the first year of the biennium 2012–2013, ended 31 December 2012,
Montreal Protocol,
Fund,
1. To approve the revision of the 2013 budget in the amount of 4,744,796 United States dollars and the
budget of $5,065,460 for 2014, as set out in annex I to the report of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
2. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down $467,863 in 2013 and $788,527 in 2014, and to note the
proposed drawdown of $703,302 in 2015;
3. To approve, as a consequence of the drawdowns referred to in paragraph 2 of the present decision, total
contributions to be paid by the parties of $4,276,933 for 2013 and 2014, and to note the contributions of
$4,276,933 for 2015, as set out in annex II to the report of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol;
4. That the contributions of individual parties for 2014 and indicative contributions for 2015 shall be listed
in annex II to the report of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties;
5. To reaffirm an operating cash reserve at a level of 15 per cent of the annual budget to be used to meet the
553
6. To request the Secretariat to indicate, in future financial reports of the trust funds for the Vienna
Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol, the amounts of cash in hand
in the “Total reserves and fund balances” section, in addition to contributions that have not yet been
received;
8. To note with concern that a number of parties have not paid their contribution for 2013 and prior years,
and to urge those parties to pay both their outstanding contributions and their future contributions
MP DECISIONS
promptly and in full;

ARTICLE 13
9. To authorize the Executive Secretary to enter into discussions with any party whose contributions are
outstanding for two or more years with a view to finding a way forward, and to request that the Executive
Secretary report to the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties on the outcome of the discussions;
10. To reaffirm the importance of the full participation of parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
and of parties so operating in the activities of the Meeting of the Parties;
11. To encourage parties that are continuing to receive hard copies of meeting documents to inform the
Ozone Secretariat if they are accessing such documentation through its website.
Decision XXVI/21: Financial reports and budgets for the Montreal Protocol
Recalling decision XXV/20 on financial reports of the trust funds and budgets for the Montreal Protocol,
Ozone Layer for the biennium 2012–2013, ended 31 December 2013,
Montreal Protocol,
Welcoming the continued efficient management by the Secretariat of the finances of the Trust Fund for the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
1. To take note with appreciation of the financial statement of the Trust Fund for the biennium 2012–2013,
ended 31 December 2013, and the report on the actual expenditures for 2012 and 2013 as compared with
the approvals for those years;
2. To approve the revised budget for 2014 in the amount of $5,065,460 and the budget for 2015 in the
amount of $5,922,857, and to note the budget for 2016 in the amount of $5,033,230, as set out in annex
IV to the report of the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the
Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
3. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down the amounts of $788,527 in 2014 and $1,645,924 in 2015, and
to note the proposed drawdown of $756,297 in 2016;
4. To approve, as a consequence of the drawdowns referred to in paragraph 3 of the present decision, that
the contributions to be paid by the parties amount to $4,276,933 for 2014 and 2015, and to note the
contributions of $4,276,933 for 2016, as set out in annex V to the report of the tenth meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol;
5. That no funds shall be spent to cover the travel costs to meetings of members of the Assessment Panels
from parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;
554
6. To reaffirm a working capital reserve at a level of 15 per cent of the annual budget to be used to meet the
final expenditures under the Trust Fund, noting that the working capital reserve shall be set aside from the
existing fund balance;
7. To request the Secretariat to indicate in future financial reports of the Trust Fund for the Montreal
Protocol, the amounts of cash in hand in the section entitled “Total reserves and fund balances”, in
addition to contributions that have not yet been received;
8. To encourage parties, non-parties and other stakeholders to contribute financially and by other means to
assist members of the three assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies with a view to ensuring their
continued participation in the assessment activities under the Protocol;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 13
9. To note with concern that a number of parties have not paid their contributions for 2014 and prior years,
and to urge those parties to pay both their outstanding contributions and future contributions promptly
and in full;
10. To request the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme to extend the Trust
Fund until 31 December 2025.
Decision XXVII/18: Financial report and budget of the trust fund of the Montreal Protocol
Recalling decision XXVI/21 on the financial report and budget for the Montreal Protocol,
Ozone Layer for the year ended 31 December 2014,
Montreal Protocol,
Noting with concern that the scheduling of unbudgeted meetings may have serious implications for the fund
balance,
Welcoming the continued efficient management by the Secretariat of the finances of the Trust Fund for the
Montreal Protocol,
1. To approve the revised 2015 budget in the amount of $6,363,557 and the 2016 budget of $6,772,162, as
set out in annex I to the report of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
2. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down the amounts of $2,086,624 in 2015 and $2,495,229 in 2016;
3. To approve, as a consequence of the drawdowns referred to in paragraph 2 of the present decision, total
contributions to be paid by the parties of $4,276,933 for 2015 and $4,276,933 for 2016, as set out in annex
II to the report of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties and to note the ongoing unsustainable
depletion of the fund balance and the implications for further drawdowns after 2016;
4. To request the Secretariat to prepare scenarios for the trust fund budget, its fund balance and reserves as
well as the level of contributions that may need to be paid by the parties in the near future to ensure a fund
balance adequate to allow the continued work of the Montreal Protocol and present them in time for
consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at its the thirty-seventh meeting;
5. That the contributions of individual parties for 2016 shall be listed in annex II to the report of the Twenty-
Seventh Meeting of the Parties;
6. To reaffirm a working capital reserve at a level of 15 per cent of the annual budget to be used to meet the
555
7. To note with concern that a number of parties have not paid their contribution for prior years and to urge
those parties to pay both their outstanding contributions and their future contributions promptly and in
full, particularly given that the fund balance has been significantly depleted;
8. To request the Executive Secretary and to invite the President of the Meeting of the Parties to enter into
discussions with any party whose contributions are outstanding for two or more years with a view to
finding a way forward and to request the Executive Secretary to report to the Twenty-eighth Meeting of
the Parties on the outcome of the discussions;
9. To further consider how to address outstanding contributions to the trust fund at its next meeting and to
request the Executive Secretary to continue to publish and regularly update information on the status of
MP DECISIONS
contributions to the Protocol's trust funds;

ARTICLE 13
10. To request the Secretariat to provide, within the budget approved for 2016, administrative and
organizational support to the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel;
11. Also to request the Secretariat to ensure the full utilization of programme support costs available to it in
2016 and later years and where possible to offset those costs against the administrative components of the
approved budget;
12. To encourage parties to provide additional voluntary contributions to the trust fund entitled “Support of
the Activities of the Ozone Secretariat” for any unbudgeted meetings;
13. In addition to the funds allocated from the core budget to cover the travel costs of representatives of
parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, to encourage parties to contribute to the trust
fund entitled “Support of the Activities of the Ozone Secretariat” with a view to ensuring the full and
effective participation of parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in the Meeting of the Parties and
the Open-ended Working Group;
14. To request the Secretariat to indicate in future financial reports of the Trust Fund for the Montreal
Protocol the amounts of cash on hand in the section entitled “Total reserves and fund balances” in
addition to contributions that have not yet been received.
556
Decision II/2: Amendment of the Protocol
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/2 to adopt in accordance with the procedure laid down in
paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Amendment to the
Montreal Protocol as set out in Annex II to the report on the work of the Second Meeting of the Parties.
Decision II/16: Amendment of the Vienna Convention
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/16 to recommend that the Parties to the Vienna Convention
MP DECISIONS
for the Protection of the Ozone Layer review, at the earliest opportunity, Article 9 of the Convention with a view
ARTICLE 14
to expediting the amendment procedure for protocols.
Decision IV/4: Further Amendment of the Protocol
Montreal Protocol as set out in Annex III to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision IX/4: Further Amendment of the Protocol
Montreal Protocol as set out in annex IV to the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XI/5: Further Amendment of the Montreal Protocol
in paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Amendment to
the Montreal Protocol as set out in annex V to the report of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties.
557
Note: the following decisions are all also relevant to Article 13 of the Vienna Convention.
Decision III/1: Adjustments and amendment
(b) To note that only two States have so far ratified the Amendment, adopted at the Second Meeting of the
Parties to the Protocol and to urge all States to ratify that Amendment in view of the fact that twenty
instruments of ratification, approval or acceptance are required for it to come into force on 1 January
MP DECISIONS
1992.
ARTICLE 16
Decision IV/1: Amendment adopted by the Second Meeting of the Parties (London Amendment)
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. IV/1 to invite the attention of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol to the entry into force, on 10 August 1992, of the Amendment to the Protocol adopted by the Second
Meeting of the Parties and to urge all Parties that have not yet ratified the said Amendment to do so.
Decision V/1: Amendments adopted by the Second Meeting of the Parties (London
Amendment) and by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties (Copenhagen Amendment)
1. To note with satisfaction the large number of countries that have ratified the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer and its Montreal Protocol and to urge all States that have not yet done so to
become Parties to both instruments;
2. To urge all Parties to the Montreal Protocol that have not yet done so to ratify the London and
Copenhagen Amendments to the Protocol.
Decision VI/1: Ratification, approval or accession to the Vienna Convention for the Protection
of the Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the
Amendments to the Montreal Protocol
Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and
the Amendments to the Montreal Protocol;
2. To urge all States that have not yet done so to ratify, approve or accede to the Vienna Convention, the
Montreal Protocol and the Amendments to the Montreal Protocol.
558
Decision VII/13: Ratification, approval or accession to the Vienna Convention for the Protection
of the Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the
Amendments to the Montreal Protocol
Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and
the Amendments to the Montreal Protocol;
2. To urge all States that have not yet done so to ratify, approve or accede to the Vienna Convention, the
MP DECISIONS
Montreal Protocol and the Amendments to the Montreal Protocol, taking into account that universal
ARTICLE 16
participation is necessary to ensure the protection of the ozone layer.
Decision VIII/1: Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and its
Amendments
Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer;
2. To note that many Parties have yet to ratify the London and Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal
Protocol;
3. To urge all States that have not yet done so, to ratify, approve or accede to the Vienna Convention, the
Montreal Protocol and its Amendments, taking into account that universal participation is necessary to
ensure the protection of the ozone layer.
Decision IX/10: Ratification of the Vienna Convention, Montreal Protocol and London and
Copenhagen Amendments
2. To note that many Parties have yet to ratify the London and Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal
Protocol;
3. To urge all States that have not yet done so, to ratify, approve or accede to the Vienna Convention, the
Decision X/1: Ratification of the Vienna Convention, Montreal Protocol, London, Copenhagen
and Montreal Amendments
2. To note that many Parties have yet to ratify the London, Copenhagen and Montreal Amendments to the
Montreal Protocol;
3. To urge all States that have not yet done so to ratify, approve or accede to the Vienna Convention and the
559
Decision XI/11: Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and the London,
Copenhagen and Montreal Amendments
2. To note that 136 Parties have ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, while only 101
Parties have ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and only 29 Parties have
ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol as of 15 November 1999;
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 16
Decision XII/7: Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the London,
Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments
2. To note that as of 30 November 2000, 142 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol and 113 Parties had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, while only
46 Parties had ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol;
3. To note further that only one Party has to date ratified the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, a
situation that will make it unlikely for the Amendment to enter into force by 1 January 2001 as agreed in
Beijing in 1999;
Decision XIII/14: Ratification of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer,
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the London,
Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments
2. To note that as of 30 September 2001, 153 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol and 128 Parties had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, while only
63 Parties had ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol;
3. To note further that only 11 Parties have to date ratified the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol,
a situation that made it impossible for the Amendment to enter into force by 1 January 2001 as agreed in
Beijing in 1999;
560
Decision XIV/1: Ratification of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the London, Copenhagen,
Montreal and Beijing Amendments
Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
2. To note that as of 28 November 2002. 164 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol, 142 Parties had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 84 Parties had
MP DECISIONS
ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol while only 41 Parties had ratified the Beijing
ARTICLE 16
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol;
3. To note further that the Beijing Amendment entered into force on 25 February 2002, on the ninetieth day
following the date of deposit on which the twentieth instrument of ratification had been deposited by
States or regional economic integration organizations that are Party to the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer;
Decision XV/1: Ratification of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the London, Copenhagen,
Montreal and Beijing amendments
2. To note that, as of 1 November 2003, 166 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal
ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol while only 57 Parties had ratified the Beijing
Decision XVI/1: Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the London,
Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Protocol l
2. To note that, as of 22 November 2004, 175 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol, 164 Parties had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, and 121 Parties
had ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, while only 84 Parties had ratified the
Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol;
Montreal Protocol and its amendments, taking into account that universal participation is necessary to
561
Decision XVII/1: Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the
London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Montreal Protocol
1. To note with satisfaction the large number of countries which have ratified the Vienna Convention for the
2. To note that, as of 15 December 2005, 179 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal
MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 16
Decision XVIII/6: Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the London,
Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Protocol
2. To note that, as of 30 October 2006, 184 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal
Decision XIX/1: Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the London,
Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Protocol
2. To note that, as of 21 September 2007, 191 Parties had ratified the Vienna Convention on Protection of
the Ozone Layer, 191 Parties had ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer, 186 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 178 Parties had ratified
the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 157 Parties had ratified the Montreal Amendment
to the Montreal Protocol and 132 Parties had ratified the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol;
562
Decision XX/1: Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the
2. To note that, as of 15 November 2008, 193 Parties had ratified the Vienna Convention and the Montreal
Protocol, 189 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 184 Parties had
ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 167 Parties had ratified the Montreal
MP DECISIONS
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and 144 Parties had ratified the Beijing Amendment to the
ARTICLE 16
Montreal Protocol;
Decision XXI/1: Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the
1. To note with satisfaction that 196 Parties have ratified the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, representing
universal ratification, and also a higher number of Parties than any other treaties in history;
2. To note that, as of 31 October 2009, 193 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal
ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and 160 Parties had ratified the Beijing
3. To urge all States that have not yet done so to ratify, approve or accede to the amendments to the
Montreal Protocol, taking into account that universal participation is necessary to ensure the protection of
the ozone layer.
Decision XXII/1: Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the
2. To note that, as at 1 November 2010, 195 parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol, 192 parties had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 181 parties had
ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and 165 parties had ratified the Beijing
563
Decision XXIII/1: Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the
2. To note that, as at 1 November 2011, 196 parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol, 194 parties had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 185 parties had
ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and 171 parties had ratified the Beijing
MP DECISIONS

ARTICLE 16
3. To urge all States that have not yet done so to ratify, approve or accede to the amendments to the
Montreal Protocol, taking into account that universal participation is necessary to ensure the protection of
the ozone layer.
Decision XXIV/1: Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the
1. To note with satisfaction the universal ratification of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the London
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, each
with 197 parties;
2. To note also that, as at 16 November 2012, 193 parties had ratified the Montreal Amendment to the
Montreal Protocol and 183 parties had ratified the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol;
3. To urge Bahrain, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Chad, Djibouti, Ecuador, Haiti, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kenya, Libya, Mauritania, Papua New Guinea and Saudi Arabia to ratify,
approve or accede to the Montreal and Beijing Amendments, taking into account that universal
participation is necessary to ensure the protection of the ozone layer.
Decision XXV/1: Status of ratification of the Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Montreal
Protocol
2. To note that, as at 25 October 2013, 194 parties had ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol and 192 parties had ratified the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol;
3. To urge all States that have not yet done so to ratify, approve or accede to the amendments, taking into
account the fact that universal participation is necessary to ensure the protection of the ozone layer.
Decision XXVI/1: Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the
1. To note with satisfaction the universal ratification of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and the London
Amendment, the Copenhagen Amendment, and the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol;
564
2. To note that, as at 1 November 2014, 196 parties had ratified the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol;
3. To urge Mauritania, which has not yet done so, to ratify, approve or accede to the Beijing Amendment to
the Montreal Protocol, taking into account that universal participation is necessary to ensure the
protection of the ozone layer.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 16
565
Decision II/6: Article 19 (Withdrawal)
The Second Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. II/6 to agree that the phrase “at any time after four years of
assuming the obligations” in Article 19 should be understood to mean at any time after four years after a Party’s
obligation to comply became operative.
MP DECISIONS
ARTICLE 19
566
Section 2 Decisions of the Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Other)
Other Decisions
Decisions on climate change
Decision X/16: Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in the light of the Kyoto Protocol
Noting the need to implement multilateral environmental agreements in a coherent way for the benefit of the
global environment,
MP DECISIONS
Noting that the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
adopted the Kyoto Protocol to the Convention at its third meeting, held in Kyoto, from 1 to 11 December 1997,
OTHER
Noting that the Kyoto Protocol requires Parties listed in Annex I of the Framework Convention on Climate
Change to ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse
gases listed in Annex A of that Protocol do not exceed their assigned amounts as listed in Annex B during the
first commitment period of 2008-2012,
Noting further that the greenhouse gases included in Annex A of the Kyoto Protocol include hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) in view of their high global warming potentials,
Noting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel has identified HFCs and PFCs as alternatives to
ozone-depleting substances, and some Parties and enterprises have already changed over, and others are
changing over, to such HFC and PFC technologies, and
Noting with appreciation that the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change at
its fourth meeting adopted a decision on the relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer
and efforts to safeguard the global climate system, in particular with reference to HFCs and PFCs,
To request, with a view in particular to assisting the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to assess the implications
for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol of the inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protocol, the
relevant Montreal Protocol bodies, within their areas of competence:
(a) To provide relevant information on HFCs and PFCs to the Secretariat of the Framework Convention on
Climate Change by 15 July 1999 in accordance with operative paragraph 1 of the above-mentioned
decision;
(b) To convene a workshop with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which will assist the bodies
of the Framework Convention on Climate Change to establish information on available and potential
ways and means of limiting emissions of HFCs and PFCs in accordance with operative paragraph 2 of the
above-mentioned decision;
(c) To continue to develop information on the full range of existing and potential alternatives to ozone
depleting substances for specific uses, including alternatives not listed in Annex A of the Kyoto Protocol;
(d) To otherwise continue to cooperate with the relevant bodies under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change and IPCC on these matters; and
(e) To report to the Open Ended Working Group at its nineteenth meeting and to the Eleventh Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on this work.
567
Decision XIV/10: Relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and
efforts to safeguard the global climate system: issues relating to hydrofluorocarbons and
perfluorocarbons
Welcoming decision X/CP.8 taken by the eighth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change on the relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and
efforts to safeguard the global climate system,
Noting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Technology and Economic Assessment
MP DECISIONS
Panel are invited by the Convention on Climate Change to develop a balanced scientific, technical and policy-
relevant special report as outlined in their responses to a request by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
OTHER
Technological Advice of the Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC/SBSTA/2002/MISC.23),
To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to work with the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change in preparing the report mentioned above and to address all areas in one single integrated report
to be finalized by early 2005. The report should be completed in time to be submitted to the Open-ended
Working Group for consideration in so far as it relates to actions to address ozone depletion and the Subsidiary
Body for Scientific and Technological Advice of the Convention on Climate Change simultaneously.
Decision XVII/19: Consideration of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report as it relates to actions to
address ozone depletion
Noting with appreciation the special report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System:
Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons”, and the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel’s supplementary report that sets out clearly the ozone depletion implications of the issues raised in the
special report,
Noting the supplementary report’s conclusion that mitigation strategies relating to banks of ozone-depleting
substances will have limited impact on ozone-layer recovery,
Acknowledging the need for Parties to have a full understanding of the policy implications for ozone layer
protection of forecast emissions from banks of ozone-depleting substances in both global and regional terms,
Recalling the report of the sixth meeting of Ozone Research Managers of the Parties to the Vienna Convention,
which reported that activities under the “mitigation scenario” presented in the special report provided an
opportunity to protect the ozone layer further and to reduce greenhouse gases significantly,
Acknowledging that the upcoming 2006 Scientific Assessment Report will cover in more detail some issues
raised in the special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel, such as the discrepancy between atmospheric concentrations of ozone-depleting
substances and emissions reported,
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat to organize an experts workshop in the margins of the twenty-sixth
meeting of the Open-ended Working Group in 2006, to consider issues as described in paragraph 3 of the
present decision, arising from the special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s
supplementary report;
2. To request Parties to provide nominations for experts to participate in the workshop to the Ozone
Secretariat by 30 March 2006, aiming for a balanced representation from regional groups;
568
3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to present a summary of the reports at the
workshop and that experts then produce a list of practical measures relating to ozone depletion that arise
from the reports, indicating their associated ozone-depleting substances cost effectiveness and taking into
account the full costs of such measures. The list should also contain information on other environmental
benefits, including those relating to climate change, that would result from these measures;
4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to produce a report of the workshop to the Parties by 1 September 2006
and report to the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties;
5. To request the Ozone Secretariat to inform the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change of the workshop and invite its representatives to attend as observers and report back
to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;
MP DECISIONS
OTHER
6. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to coordinate with the World Meteorological
Organization and the Scientific Assessment Panel to clarify the source of the discrepancy between
emissions determined from bottom-up methods and from atmospheric measurement, with a view to:
(a) Identifying the use patterns for the total production forecast for the period 2002–2015 in both Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol and Parties not so operating;
(b) Making improved estimates of future emissions from banks, including those in the refrigeration,
foams and other sectors, given the accuracy of calculations of the size of banks and the emissions
derived from them, as well as servicing practices, and issues relating to recovery and recycling and
end-of-life;
7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report to the Parties at their Eighteenth
Meeting on the activities referred to in paragraph 6.
Decision XVIII/12: Future work following the Ozone Secretariat workshop on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
special report
Recalling decision XVII/19 which requested the Ozone Secretariat to organize an experts workshop on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology and Economic Assessment Panel special report in the
margins of the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group in 2006,
Noting with appreciation Parties' submissions for the list of practical measures as well as the preparations of the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for the workshop,
Noting with appreciation the report of the workshop provided by the Ozone Secretariat,
Noting with appreciation the summary of Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2006 , and its options on
additional measures to accelerate the recovery, but further noting with concern better scientific understanding
now suggests a 10 to 15 year later return of chlorine levels to pre-1980 values in the atmosphere,
Noting with appreciation the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Task Force on Emission
Discrepancies,
Mindful that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol should phase out
consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons by 2030 and freeze production by 2004 and that the Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5 should phase out consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons by 2040 and freeze
production by 2016,
Aware of the potential implications of Clean Development Mechanism projects in hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22

production facilities,
569
Acknowledging, therefore, that further work needs to be done to reach the targets of the Vienna Convention and
the Montreal Protocol for recovery of the ozone layer,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to further assess the measures listed in the
report of Ozone Secretariat workshop on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel special report, in the light of current and expected trends of ozone-
depleting substance production and consumption and with a focus on hydrochlorofluorocarbons, taking
into account timing, feasibility and environmental benefits in Parties operating under Article 5 and Parties
not operating under Article 5 of the Protocol;
2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide information on current and future
MP DECISIONS
demand for, and supply of, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, giving full consideration to the influence of the
Clean Development Mechanism on hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 production, as well as on the availability
OTHER
of alternatives to hydrochlorofluorocarbons;
3. To request the Ozone Secretariat to facilitate consultations, as appropriate, by the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel with relevant organizations, namely, the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
Executive Board of Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, and the secretariat of the
Multilateral Fund, to enable the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to draw on the work
already carried out under these organizations, including any work relating to hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22,
and consider, in cooperation with the Scientific Assessment Panel, the implications of these findings for
the recovery of the ozone layer;
4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report its findings on the issues mentioned
in paragraphs 1 and 2 above to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh meeting for
consideration, with a view to providing a final report to the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties.
Decision XX/8: Workshop for a dialogue on high-global warming potential alternatives for
ozone-depleting substances
Noting that the transition from, and phase-out of, ozone-depleting substances has implications for climate system
protection,
Recognizing that decision XIX/6 encourages Parties to promote the selection of alternatives to
hydrochlorofluorocarbons to minimize environmental impacts, in particular impacts on climate,
Recognizing also that there is scope for coordination between the Montreal Protocol and the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol for reducing emissions and minimizing
environmental impacts from hydrofluorocarbons, and that Montreal Protocol Parties and associated bodies have
considerable expertise in these areas which they could share,
Recognizing further that there is a need for more information on the environmental implications of possible
transitions from ozone-depleting substances to high-global warming potential chemicals, in particular
hydrofluorocarbons,
1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to update the data contained within the
Panel’s 2005 Supplement to the IPCC/TEAP Special Report and to report on the status of alternatives to
hydrochlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons, including a description of the various use patterns,
costs, and potential market penetration of alternatives no later than 15 May 2009;
2. To request the Ozone Secretariat to prepare a report that compiles current control measures, limits and
information reporting requirements for compounds that are alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and
that are addressed under international agreements relevant to climate change;
570
3. To request the Ozone Secretariat with input, where appropriate, from the secretariat of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol to convene an open-ended dialogue on
high-global warming potential alternatives for ozone-depleting substances among Parties, including
participation by the assessment panels and the Multilateral Fund Secretariat, and inviting the Fund’s
implementing agencies, other relevant multilateral environmental agreement secretariats and non-
governmental organizations to discuss technical and policy issues related to alternatives for ozone-
depleting substances, with a particular focus on exchanging views of the best ways of how the experience
from the Montreal Protocol can be used to address the impact of hydrofluorocarbons, and also with a
view to maximizing the ozone and climate benefits of the hydrochlorofluorocarbon early phase-out under
MP DECISIONS
4. To encourage Parties to include their climate experts as participants in the workshop;
OTHER
5. That the above-mentioned dialogue on high-global warming potential alternatives to ozone-depleting
substances should be held just before the twenty-ninth meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group and
that interpretation will be provided in the six official languages of the United Nations;
6. To request the co-chairs of the workshop, in cooperation with the Ozone Secretariat, to prepare a
summary report of the discussions that take place during the dialogue and to report on the proceedings to
the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-ninth meeting;
7. To invite one representative of a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and one representative of
a Party not so operating to serve as co-chairs of the workshop;
8. To request the Ozone Secretariat to communicate the present decision to the secretariat of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol and to encourage that
secretariat to make the decision available at the fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to that
Convention for possible consideration of participation in the workshop.
Decisions on the Global Environment Facility
Decision X/33: Global Environment Facility
The Tenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. X/33 to note with appreciation the assistance given by the
Council of the Global Environment Facility to the countries with economies in transition.
Decision XI/22: Global Environment Facility
The Eleventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XI/22 to note with appreciation the continued assistance
given by the Council of the Global Environment Facility to the countries with economies in transition.
Decision XII/14: Continued assistance from the Global Environment Facility to countries with
The Twelfth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XII/14 to note with appreciation the assistance given by the
Global Environment Facility to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances in countries with economies in
transition, and to request the Facility to clarify its future commitment to providing continued assistance to these
countries with respect to all ozone-depleting substances.
Decision XV/49: Application for technical and financial assistance from the Global Environment
Facility by South Africa
Recalling decision IX/27, in which South Africa was classified as a developing country,
571
Recognizing that the controlled substance in Annex E, methyl bromide, was included as a controlled substance
for Article 5 countries in 1997 and that, in the same year, South Africa was also classified as an Article 5
country,
Noting that South Africa was not to request financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund for fulfilling
commitments undertaken by developed countries prior to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties,
Noting also that South Africa expressed the need to apply for technical and financial assistance from the
Multilateral Fund to phase out the controlled substance in Annex E at the twenty-second meeting of the Open-
ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,
MP DECISIONS
Noting further that, during the twenty-second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, South Africa was
advised to negotiate for bilateral or multilateral assistance from sources other than the Multilateral Fund,
OTHER
To request the Council of the Global Environment Facility to consider, on an exceptional basis, project proposals
from South Africa on phasing out the controlled substance in Annex E for funding as per the conditions and
eligibility criteria applicable to all countries eligible for such assistance under the Facility.
Decision XV/50: Continued assistance from the Global Environment Facility to countries with
The Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XV/50 to note with appreciation the assistance given by the
Global Environment Facility to phase out ozone-depleting substances in countries with economies in transition,
and the commitment by the Facility to continue providing in the future assistance to those countries with respect
to all ozone-depleting substances.
Decision XV/51: Institutional strengthening assistance to countries with economies in

transition
1. To note with appreciation the assistance that the Global Environment Facility has provided to date to
countries with economies in transition;
2. To note also with appreciation that the Council of the Global Environment Facility has earmarked
$60 million to assist countries with economies in transition phase out methyl bromide and HCFCs;
3. To note that, while such assistance has been successful in furthering ODS phase-out, continued
institutional strengthening assistance is necessary to ensure that such progress is sustained and that the
Parties continue to comply with their reporting obligations;
4. To note the work under way in the Council of the Global Environment Facility to develop a major
capacity-building initiative across all its focal areas;
5. To urge those countries with economies in transition that are experiencing difficulty in meeting their
obligations under the Protocol to consider working with the implementing agencies to seek assistance for
institutional strengthening from the Global Environment Facility;
6. To request the Global Environment Facility to consider favourably such applications for assistance, in
accordance with its criteria for its capacity-building.
Decisions on aviation and the global atmosphere
Decision IX/25: Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere
1. To note the statement of the Co-Chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel that, while the Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion will be ready by October 1998, as requested by the Seventh Meeting of
572
the Parties in its decision VII/34, the Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere being
prepared pursuant to the same decision, will not be ready until March 1999;
2. To approve the date of 31 March 1999 for the submission of the Special Report on Aviation and the
Global Atmosphere.
Decision XI/18: Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere
1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Scientific Assessment Panel and the Intergovernmental
MP DECISIONS
Panel on Climate Change in preparing the Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere;
OTHER
2. To express its appreciation to the Scientific Assessment Panel for its collaboration with the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in preparing the above-mentioned report;
3. To note with appreciation the message of the President of the Council of the International Civil Aviation
Organization on the willingness of ICAO to continue the process of working together on the issues with
4. To recommend that the Scientific Assessment Panel should continue its collaboration with the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and keep the Parties to the Montreal Protocol informed on
the potential impacts of the aircraft emissions on stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change.
Decisions on the relationship of the Montreal Protocol with other international

agreements and institutions
Decision XIII/29: Recognizing the preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable
Development 2002
Recalling the ongoing preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which will take place in
Johannesburg in 2002,
Recognizing the substantial progress made in the implementation of the objectives of the Vienna Convention and
its Montreal Protocol,
Stressing that the Protocol has often been cited as an example of a well-functioning multilateral environmental
agreement;
1. To note with appreciation the comprehensive preparatory process for the World Summit;
2. To recognize the need to consider ways to improve the overall effectiveness of the international
environmental institutions and therefore to welcome the work undertaken by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) in the framework of international environmental governance;
3. To support appropriate collaboration and synergies that may exist between multilateral environmental
agreements, as agreed by the Parties to those agreements;
4. To look forward to the recommendations on this issue by the Governing Council of UNEP in its
7th special session, in February 2002, and to the final decisions by the Johannesburg Summit in
September 2002 and by the third Global Ministerial Environmental Forum;
5. To request the Executive Director of UNEP to bring this decision to the attention of the President of the
UNEP Governing Council and the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee of the World Summit.
573
Decision XIV/8: Consideration of the use of the Globally Harmonized System for the
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals that deplete the ozone layer
Noting the value that could be attributed to labelling ozone-depleting substances under the Globally Harmonized
System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), such as: providing information with respect to
identifying the safe handling of these substances in trade, in the workplace, and in consumer products,
Acknowledging the work of the Economic and Social Council and its subcommittee of experts that are
responsible for developing the GHS,
MP DECISIONS
Noting, however, that substances that deplete the ozone layer are not currently included in the GHS;
OTHER
To request the Ozone Secretariat to contact the Subcommittee of Experts of the Economic and Social Council
once the GHS has been adopted by Council in order to clarify whether ozone-depleting substances are included
in its programme of work and, if they are not included:
(a) To evaluate the possibilities for and feasibility of including ozone-depleting substances on its work
programme; and
(b) To report to the twenty-third meeting of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties.
Decision XIV/11: The relationship between the Montreal Protocol and the World Trade
Organization
1. To request the Ozone Secretariat to report to the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on any meetings it
attends at the World Trade Organization and any substantive contacts with the World Trade Organization
Secretariat and its Committee Secretariats;
2. To request the Secretariat to monitor developments in the negotiations of the World Trade Organization
Committee on Trade and Environment in special session and report to the Parties;
3. To further request that the Ozone Secretariat, in coordination with the Multilateral Fund Secretariat, when
called upon to provide general advice to the World Trade Organization on trade provisions of the
Montreal Protocol and activities of the Multilateral Fund, consult with the Parties of the Montreal
Protocol and the Executive Committee before providing this advice. If the Ozone Secretariat is asked for
interpretations of the Protocol’s trade provisions, the Secretariat should refer the matter to the Parties
before providing that advice.
Decision XVI/34: Cooperation between the secretariat of the Montreal Protocol and other
related conventions and international organizations
Noting that the United Nations Environment Programme has encouraged an informal institutional dialogue over
several years, between convention secretariats, and that the Governing Council, at its last general session, in
February 2003, encouraged the United Nations Environment Programme to develop synergies and improve
cooperation between its existing institutions,
Noting also that informal dialogue has been taking place more recently between multilateral environmental
agreements, including between the secretariats of the Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Rotterdam
Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
International Trade, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the strategic approach to
international chemicals management, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World
574
Trade Organization and the World Customs Organization to enhance synergies in particular in relation to the
environment, health and trade,
Mindful of the need to strengthen cooperation between the Montreal Protocol and the other convention
secretariats and international organizations within their respective mandates,
1. Welcomes the enhanced cooperation between the Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol and the other
convention secretariats and international organizations;
2. Requests the Secretariat:
MP DECISIONS
(a) To seek opportunities to enhance its cooperation with other relevant conventions or organizations
that pertain to issues related to the Montreal Protocol either, resources permitting, by attending
OTHER
meetings or through the exchange of factual information, including schedules of meetings;
(b) To report to the Meeting of the Parties of the Montreal Protocol on any meetings of other
conventions or organizations that it attends, any substantive contacts that it has with the relevant
secretariats, and any information provided to or requested by these secretariats, mindful at all times that the
Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol cannot provide any legal interpretation of the provisions of the
Protocol;
(c) To monitor developments in other related conventions and organizations of interest to the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol and to report on such developments to the Meeting of the Parties of the
Montreal Protocol;
(d) To reflect on ways of enhancing information flows on matters of common interest with the other
related conventions and organizations of interest to the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;
3. Encourages Governments to apprise their representatives that participate in the meetings of other related
conventions and international organizations on the nature of the present decision.
Decisions on future challenges
Decision XVIII/36: Dialogue on key future challenges to be faced by the Montreal Protocol

1. To convene a two-day open-ended dialogue, including participation by the Assessment Panels, the Ozone
Secretariat, the Multilateral Fund secretariat and the implementing agencies, and inviting other relevant
multilateral environmental agreement secretariats and non-governmental organizations as observers, to
discuss issues related to the future key challenges of the Montreal Protocol, in accordance with the
agenda contained in the annex to the present decision;
2. That the above-mentioned dialogue will be held during the two days immediately preceding the twenty-
seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and that interpretation in the six United Nations
languages will be provided;
3. To request the Secretariat, liaising with the appropriate Montreal Protocol bodies, to prepare and to post
on its website by 30 April 2007 a background document to serve as context for the above-mentioned
dialogue, containing:
(a) A summary of the key achievements of the Montreal Protocol, lessons learned and its present status;
(b) Volumes of ozone-depleting substances phased out and phased in by substance and by category of
Parties (i.e., Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and Parties not so operating), forecasts
of future trends in production and consumption and emissions from ozone-depleting substance
banks;
(c) A compilation of submissions by Parties received in accordance with paragraph 4 of the present
decision;
575
(d) Concise factual information on the topics contained in the agenda of the dialogue;
(e) Data on the ozone-depleting substances phased out and phased in under projects approved and
implemented under the Multilateral Fund;
(f) An overview of the current and predicted future state of the ozone layer;
4. To invite Parties to submit to the Secretariat by 16 April 2007 any suggestions they may have on the
topics to be discussed under the agenda contained in the annex;
5. To further request the Secretariat to prepare, in cooperation with the co-chairs of the dialogue, a summary
MP DECISIONS
report of the discussions that take place during the dialogue;

OTHER
6. That a summary of key issues arising from the dialogue will be prepared by the co-chairs of the dialogue
and presented at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;
7. To select Mr. Khaled Klaly (Syrian Arab Republic) and Mr. Tom Land (United States of America) as co-
chairs of the dialogue.
Annex to decision XVIII/36
Agenda for a dialogue on key future challenges faced by the Montreal Protocol Nairobi, Kenya.
Day 1
Welcome / Introduction
Speech by an eminent person
Summary of key achievements of the Montreal Protocol (Ozone Secretariat)
Questions / Discussion of summary presented by the Ozone Secretariat
Lunch
Future challenges related to scientific assessment, analysis and monitoring of the state of the ozone layer
Challenges in phasing-out HCFCs. Open discussion.
Key future policy challenges related to the further management, control and/or phase-out of ozone-
depleting substances other than HCFCs
Day 2
Issues related to sustaining compliance, maintaining enforcement and combating illegal trade beyond
2010
Lunch
Improving cooperation and coordination of the Montreal Protocol with other multilateral environmental
agreements and processes
The future of the Multilateral Fund beyond 2010
Administration and institutional issues related to the Montreal Protocol including issues related to the
Meeting of the Parties, the assessment panels, the Implementation Committee and the Ozone Secretariat
Summary and conclusions
576
Decision XXV/9: Implementation of the Montreal Protocol with regard to small island
developing States
Recalling that, of the 197 parties to the Montreal Protocol, 39 are recognized by the United Nations as small
island developing States,
Noting that the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 20
to 22 June 2012, recognized in its outcome document, “The future we want”, that the phase-out of ozone-
depleting substances was resulting in a rapid increase in the use and release of high-global-warming-potential
MP DECISIONS
hydrofluorocarbons to the environment,
OTHER
Recognizing decision XIX/6, in which the parties agreed to accelerate the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons
and encouraged parties to promote the selection of alternatives thereto that minimized environmental impact, in
particular impact on climate, as well as meeting other health, safety and economic considerations,
Noting that the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development reaffirmed
that small island developing States remained a special case for sustainable development in view of their unique
and particular vulnerabilities, including their small size, remoteness, narrow resource and export base, and
exposure to global environmental challenges and external economic shocks,
To request the Ozone Secretariat to liaise with the organizers of the Third International Conference on Small
Island Developing States, to be held in Apia from 1 to 4 September 2014, with a view to promoting discussions
on the challenges associated with the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, and to report to the parties on the
outcome of that liaison at the thirty-fourth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.
577
Section 3
Relevant Annexes to
the
Decisions of the
Parties
579
Section 3.1 Destruction processes
Section 3.1
Destruction procedures
Approved destruction processes (2011)

[Source: Annex to Decision XXIII/12]
Applicability
Dilute
Concentrated Sources Sources
Annex A Annex B Annex C Annex E
Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 1 Group 1
Carbon Methyl
Primary Other Tetrachlori Chlorofor Methyl
Technology CFCs Halons CFCs de m HCFCs Bromide
Destruction &
Removal
Efficiency (DRE) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 95%
Argon Plasma Arc Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
Determined
Cement Kilns Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
Approved Determined
Chemical Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
Reaction with H2 Determined
and CO2
Gas Phase Catalytic Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
De-halogenation Determined Determined
Gaseous/Fume Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
Oxidation Determined Determined
Inductively coupled Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
radio frequency Determined
plasma
Liquid Injection Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
Incineration Determined
Microwave Plasma Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
Determined Determined
Municipal Solid Approved
Waste Incineration
Nitrogen Plasma Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
Arc Determined Determined
Porous Thermal Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
Reactor Determined Determined
Portable Plasma Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
Arc Determined Determined
Reactor Cracking Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
Approved Determined
Rotary Kiln Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not Approved
Incineration Determined
Superheated steam Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
reactor Determined Determined
Thermal Reaction Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not
with Methane Determined
Code of good housekeeping

[Source: Annex III of the report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties]
To provide additional guidance to facility operators, in May 1992 the Technical Advisory Committee prepared a
“Code of Good Housekeeping” as a brief outline of measures that should be considered to ensure that
environmental releases of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) through all media are minimized. This Code,
updated by the Task Force on Destruction Technologies and amended by the Parties at their Fifteenth Meeting,
in 2003, is also intended to provide a framework of practices and measures that should normally be adopted at
facilities undertaking the destruction of ODS.
Not all measures will be appropriate to all situations and circumstances and, as with any code, nothing specified
should be regarded as a barrier to the adoption of better or more effective measures if these can be identified. .
581
Pre-delivery
This refers to measures that may be appropriate prior to any delivery of ODS to a facility.
The facility operator should generate written guidelines on ODS packaging and containment criteria, together
with labelling and transportation requirements. These guidelines should be provided to all suppliers and senders
of ODS prior to agreement to accept such substances.
The facility operator should seek to visit and inspect the proposed sender’s stocks and arrangements prior to
movement of the first consignment. This is to ensure awareness on the part of the sender of proper practices and
compliance with standards.
MP DECISIONS
Arrival at the facility

OTHER
This refers to measures that should be taken at the time ODS are received at the facility gate.
These include an immediate check of documentation prior to admittance to the facility site, coupled with a
preliminary inspection of the general condition of the consignment.
Where necessary, special or “fast-track” processing and repackaging facilities may be needed to mitigate risk of
leakage or loss of ODS. Arrangements should exist to measure the gross weight of the consignment at the time
of delivery.
Unloading from delivery vehicle
This refers to measures to be taken at the facility in connection with the unloading of ODS.
It is generally assumed that ODS will normally be delivered in some form of container, drum or other vessel that
is removed from the delivery vehicle in total. Such containers may be returnable.
All unloading activities should be carried out in properly designated areas, to which restricted access of
personnel applies.
Areas should be free of extraneous activities likely to lead to, or increase the risk of, collision, accidental
dropping, spillage, etc.
Materials should be placed in designated quarantine areas for subsequent detailed checking and evaluation.
Testing and verification
This refers to the arrangements made for detailed checking of the ODS consignments prior to destruction.
Detailed checking of delivery documentation should be carried out, along with a complete inventory, to establish
that delivery is as advised and appears to comply with expectations.
Detailed checks of containers should be made both in respect of accuracy of identification labels, etc, and of
physical condition and integrity. Arrangements must be in place to permit repackaging or “fast-track” processing
of any items identified as defective.
Sampling and analysis of representative quantities of ODS consignments should be carried out to verify material
type and characteristics. All sampling and analysis should be conducted using approved procedures and
techniques.
Storage and stock control
This refers to matters concerning the storage and stock control of ODS.
582
ODS materials should be stored in specially designated areas, subject to the regulations of the relevant local
authorities. Arrangements should be put in place as soon as possible to minimize, to the extent practicable, stock
emissions prior to destruction.
Locations of stock items should be identified through a system of control that should also provide a continuous
update of quantities and locations as stock is destroyed and new stock delivered.
In regard to storage vessels for concentrated sources of ODS, these arrangements should include a system for
regular monitoring and leak detection, as well as arrangements to permit repackaging of leaking stock as soon as
possible.
MP DECISIONS
Measuring quantities destroyed
OTHER
It is important to be aware of the quantities of ODS processed through the destruction equipment. Where
possible, flow meters or continuously recording weighing equipment for individual containers should be
employed. As a minimum, containers should be weighed “full” and “empty” to establish quantities by difference.
Residual quantities of ODS in containers that can be sealed and are intended to be returned for further use, may
be allowed. Otherwise, containers should be purged of residues or destroyed as part of the process.
Facility design
This refers to basic features and requirements of plant, equipment and services deployed in the facility.
In general, any destruction facility should be properly designed and constructed in accordance with the best
standards of engineering and technology and with particular regard to the need to minimize, if not eliminate,
fugitive losses.
Particular care should be taken when designing plants to deal with dilute sources such as foams. These may be
contained in refrigeration cabinets or may be part of more general demolition waste. The area in which foam is
first separated from other substrates should be fully enclosed wherever possible and any significant emissions
captured at that stage.
Pumps: Magnetic drive, sealers or double mechanical seal pumps should be installed to eliminate environmental
releases resulting from seal leakage.
Valves: Valves with reduced leakage potential should be used. These include quarter-turn valves or valves with
extended packing glands.
Tank vents (including loading vents): Filling and breathing discharges from tanks and vessels should be
recovered or vented to a destruction process.
Piping joints: Screwed connections should not be used and the number of flanged joints should be kept to the
minimum that is consistent with safety and the ability to dismantle for maintenance and repair.
Drainage systems: Areas of the facility where ODS are stored or handled should be provided with sloped
concrete paving and a properly designed collection system. Water that is collected should, if contaminated, be
treated prior to authorized discharge.
Maintenance
In general, all maintenance work should be performed according to properly planned programmes and should be
executed within the framework of a permit system to ensure proper consideration of all aspects of the work.
ODS should be purged from all vessels, mechanical units and pipework prior to the opening of these items to the
atmosphere. The contaminated purge should be routed to the destruction process or treated to recover the ODS.
583
All flanges, seals, gaskets and other sources of minor losses should be checked routinely to identify developing
problems before containment is lost. Leaks should be repaired as soon as possible.
Consumable or short-life items, such as flexible hoses and couplings, must be monitored closely and replaced at
a frequency that renders the risk of rupture negligible.
Quality control and quality assurance
All sampling and analytical work connected with ODS, the process and the monitoring of its overall
performance should be subject to quality assessment and quality control measures in line with current recognized
practices. This should include at least occasional independent verification and confirmation of data produced by
MP DECISIONS
the facility operators.

OTHER
Consideration should also be given to the adoption of quality management systems and environment quality
practices covering the entire facility.
Training
All personnel concerned with the operation of the facility (with “operation” being interpreted in its widest sense)
should have training appropriate to their task.
Of particular relevance to the ODS destruction objectives is training in the consequences of unnecessary losses
and in the use, handling and maintenance of all equipment in the facility.
All training should be carried out by suitably qualified and experienced personnel and the details of such training
should be maintained in written records. Refresher training should be conducted at appropriate intervals.
Code of transportation
In the interest of protecting the stratospheric ozone layer, it is essential that used ODS and products containing
ODS are collected and moved efficiently to facilities practising approved destruction technologies. For
transportation purposes, used ODS should receive the same hazard classification as the original substances or
products. In practice, this may introduce restrictions on hazardous waste shipment under the Basel Convention
on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and this should be
consulted separately. In the absence of such specific restrictions, the following proposed code of transportation
for ODS from customer to destruction facilities is provided as a guide to help minimize damage caused to the
ozone layer as a result of ODS transfers. Additional guidance is contained in the United Nations Transport of
Dangerous Goods Model Regulations.
It is important to supervise and control all shipments of used ODS and products containing ODS according to
national and international requirements to protect the environment and human health. To ensure that ODS and
products containing ODS do not constitute an unnecessary risk, they must be properly packaged and labelled.
Instructions to be followed in the event of danger or accident must accompany each shipment to protect human
beings and the environment from any danger that might arise during the operation.
Notification of the following information should be provided at any intermediate stage of the shipment from the
place of dispatch until its final destination. When making notification, the notifier should supply the information
requested on the consignment note, with particular regard to:
(a) The source and composition of the ODS and products containing ODS, including the customer’s
identity;
(b) Arrangements for routing and for insurance against damage to third parties;
(c) Measures to be taken to ensure safe transport and, in particular, compliance by the carrier with the
conditions laid down for transport by the States concerned;
584
(d) The identity of the consignee, who should possess an authorized centre with adequate technical
capacity for the destruction;
(e) The existence of a contractual agreement with the consignee concerning the destruction of ODS and
products containing ODS.
This code of transportation does not necessarily apply to the disposal of ODS-containing rigid insulation foams.
The most appropriate way to dispose of such products may be by direct incineration in municipal waste
incinerators or rotary kiln incinerators.
Monitoring
MP DECISIONS
The objectives of monitoring should be to provide assurance that input materials are being destroyed with an
OTHER
acceptable efficiency generally consistent with the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) recommendations
listed in annex II to the present report and that the substances resulting from destruction yield environmentally
acceptable emission levels consistent with, or better than, those required under national standards or other
international protocols or treaties.
As there are as yet no International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards applicable for the sampling
and analysis of ODS or the majority of the other pollutants listed in annex IV to the present report, where
national standards exist they should be employed. Further, where national standards exist they may be used in
lieu of ISO standards provided that they have been the subject of a verification or validation process addressing
their accuracy and representativeness.
As ISO develops international standards for pollutants listed in annex IV to the present report, the technical
bodies charged with developing such standards should take note of the existing national standards including
those identified in appendix F to the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) of April
2002 (volume 3, report of the Task Force on Destruction Technologies) and strive to ensure consistency between
any new ISO standards and the existing standard test methods, provided that there is no finding that those
existing methods are inaccurate or unrepresentative.
Where national standards do not exist, the Technical Advisory Committee recommends adoption of the
following guidelines for monitoring of destruction processes operating using an approved technology.
Recognizing that the Unites States of America Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methods have been the
subject of verification procedures to ensure that they are reasonably accurate and representative, that they cover
all of the pollutants of interest (although not all ODS compounds have been the specific subject of verification
activities), that they provide a comprehensive level of detail that should lead to replicability of the methods by
trained personnel in other jurisdictions and that they are readily available for reference and downloading from
the Internet without the payment of a fee, applicable EPA methods as described in appendix F to the 2002 report
of TEAP may be employed.
In the interest of ensuring a common international basis of comparison for those pollutants or parameters where
ISO standards exist (currently particulates, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen), use of those standards
is encouraged and jurisdictions are encouraged to adopt them as national standards or acceptable alternatives to
existing national standards.
The use of EPA or other national standards described in appendix F is also considered acceptable, however. The
precedence given to the EPA methods in the present code is based on the relative comprehensiveness of the
methods available (both in scope and content), and the relative ease of access to those methods.
Measurement of ODS
Operators of destruction facilities should take all necessary precautions concerning the storage and inventory
control of ODS-containing material received for destruction. Prior to feeding the ODS to the approved
destruction process, the following procedures are recommended:
(a) The mass of the ODS-containing material should be determined, where practicable;
585
(b) Representative samples should be taken, where appropriate, to verify that the concentration of ODS
matches the description given on the delivery documentation;
(c) Samples should be analysed by an approved method. If no approved methods are available, the
adoption of United States EPA methods 5030 and 8240 is recommended;
(d) All records from these mass and ODS-concentration measurements should be documented and kept
in accordance with ISO 9000 or equivalent.
Control systems
MP DECISIONS
Operators should ensure that destruction processes are operated efficiently to ensure complete destruction of
ODS to the extent that it is technically feasible for the approved process. This will normally include the use of
OTHER
appropriate measurement devices and sampling techniques to monitor the operating parameters, burn conditions
and mass concentrations of the pollutants that are generated by the process.
Gaseous emissions from the process need to be monitored and analysed using appropriate instrumentation. This
should be supplemented by regular spot checks using manual stack-sampling methods. Other environmental
releases, such as liquid effluents and solid residues, require laboratory analysis on a regular basis.
The continuous monitoring recommended for ongoing process control, including off-gas cleaning systems, is as
follows:
(a) Measurement of appropriate reaction and process temperatures;
(b) Measurement of flue gas temperatures before and after the gas cleaning system;
(c) Measurement of flue gas concentrations for oxygen and carbon monoxide.
Any additional continuous monitoring requirements are subject to the national regulatory authority that has
jurisdiction. The performance of online monitors and instrumentation systems must be periodically checked and
validated. When measuring detection limits, error values at the 95 per cent confidence level should not exceed
20 per cent.
Approved processes must be equipped with automatic cut-off control systems on the ODS feed system, or be
able to go into standby mode whenever:
(a) The temperature in the reaction chamber falls below the minimum temperature required to achieve
destruction;
(b) Other minimum destruction conditions stated in the performance specifications cannot be
maintained.
Performance measurements
The approval of technologies recommended by TEAP is based on the destruction capability of the technology in
question. It is recognized that the parameters may fluctuate during day-to-day operation from this generic
capability. In practice, however, it is not possible to measure against performance criteria on a daily basis. This
is particularly the case for situations where ODS only represents a small fraction of the substances being
destroyed, thereby requiring specialist equipment to achieve detection of the very low concentrations present in
the stack gas. It is therefore not uncommon for validation processes to take place annually at a given facility.
With this in mind, TEAP is aware that the measured performance of a facility may not always meet the criteria
established for the technology. Nonetheless, TEAP sees no justification for reducing the minimum
recommendations for a given technology. Regulators, however, may need to take these practical variations into
account when setting minimum standards.
586
The ODS destruction and removal efficiency1 for a facility operating an approved technology should be
validated at least once every three years. The validation process should also include an assessment of other
relevant stack gas concentrations identified in annex II to decision XV/[…] and a comparison with maximum
levels stipulated in relevant national standards or international protocols/treaties.
Determination of the ODS destruction and removal efficiency and other relevant substances identified in annex
IV to the present report should also be followed when commissioning a new or rebuilt facility or when any other
significant change is made to the destruction procedures in a facility to ensure that all facility characteristics are
completely documented and assessed against the approved technology criteria.
Tests shall be done with known feed rates of a given ODS compound or with well-known ODS mixtures. In
MP DECISIONS
cases where a destruction process incinerates halogen-containing wastes together with ODS, the total halogen
load should be calculated and controlled. The number and duration of test runs should be carefully selected to
OTHER
reflect the characteristics of the technology.
In summary, the destruction and removal efficiency recommended for concentrated sources means that less than
0.1 gram of total ODS should normally enter the environment from stack-gas emissions when 1,000 grams of
ODS are fed into the process. A detailed analysis of stack test results should be made available to verify
emissions of halogen acids and polychlorinated dibenzodioxin and dibenzofuran (PCDD/PCDF). In addition, a
site-specific test protocol should be prepared and made available for inspection by the appropriate regulatory
authorities. The sampling protocol shall report the following data from each test:
(a) ODS feed rate;
(b) Total halogen load in the waste stream;
(c) Residence time for ODS in the reaction zone;
(d) Oxygen content in flue gas;
(e) Gas temperature in the reaction zone;
(f) Flue gas and effluent flow rate;
(g) Carbon monoxide in flue gas;
(h) ODS content in flue gas;
(i) Effluent volumes and quantities of solid residues discharged;
(j) ODS concentrations in the effluent and solid residues;
(k) Concentration of PCDD/PCDF, particulates, HCl, HF and HBr in the flue gases;
(l) Concentration of PCDD/PCDF in effluent and solids.
Suggested substances for monitoring and declaration when using

destruction technologies
[Source: Annex IV of the report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties]
Substances Units
PCDDs/PCDFs ng-ITEQ*/Nm3**
HCl/Cl2 mg/Nm3
1
Destruction and removal efficiency has traditionally been determined by subtracting from the mass of a chemical
fed into a destruction system during a specific period of time the mass of that chemical alone that is released in stack gases
and expressing that difference as a percentage of the mass of that chemical fed into the system.
587
HF mg/Nm3
HBr/Br2 mg/Nm3
Particulates (TSP***) mg/Nm3
CO mg/Nm3
* ITEQ – international toxic equivalency.
** Normal cubic metre.
*** TSP – total suspended particles.

MP DECISIONS
OTHER
588
Section 3.2
Essential use exemptions
Essential-use exemptions approved by the Meetings of the Parties

[Sources: the following Annexes and Decisions of each Meeting of the Parties: Annex I (Sixth); Annex VI (Seventh); Annexes II and III (Eighth); Annex VI (Ninth); Annex I
(Tenth); Annex VII (Eleventh); Annex I (Twelfth); Annex I (Thirteenth); Annex I (Fourteenth); Annex I (Fifteenth); Annex to Decision XVI/12; Annex to Decision
XVII/5; Annex III (Eighteenth); Decision XVIII/8; Annexes to Decision XIX/13; Decision XIX/14; Annex to Decision XX/2; Annex to Decision XXI/4; Decision XXI/5;
paragraph 7 and Annex to Decision XXII/4; Decision XXII/5; paragraph 9 and Annex to Decision XXIII/2; Decision XXIII/3; Annex to Decision XXIV/3; Decision
XXIV/4; Annex to Decision XXV/2; Decision XXV/3; Decision XXVI/3; Annex to Decision XXVI/4; Annex to Decision XXVII/2;]
Party 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Annex A, Group I (Chlorofluorocarbons)

Australia 290 194 223 309 220 11 11 11 11
Belgium 185
Canada 599 648 513 140 140
Denmark 5
European Union 6636.6 5610 5000.1 3770.1 3270 2785 2579 3928 1030 539 535 200 22
Finland 22
France 1864.1
Germany 773
Hungary 10 10 10.18 9.23 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75
Ireland 409
Israel 7.3 7.2
Italy 540
Japan 240 240 181.5 136.5 98.2 88.2 45 40 30
Poland 700 381.7 380 381.7 401.7 320.85 300.85 240 314
Portugal 13.21
Russian Federation 532 452 396 787 378 336 400 393 352 378
South Africa 189 214 223
Spain 548
Switzerland 24 8 8 0.5
Ukraine 144 120 83.5 53.1
United Kingdom of Great Britain and 3188
Northern Ireland
United States of America 4263 4659 4388 3905.8 3735 3101 3450 3270 2975 1902 1100 1000 385 282
589
Section 3.2 Essential use exemptions
Party 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Annex A, Group II (Halons)

Russian Federation 352 300 255 160 90
Annex B, Group II (Carbon tetrachloride)

Poland 2.05
Annex B, Group III (1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform))

United States of America 59.7 60.5 60.1 59.6 58.4 58.4
Annex C, Group II (HBFCs) and Annex C, Group III (Bromochloromethane)

European Union 0.025
Party 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Annex A, Group I (Chlorofluorocarbons)

Argentina 178 107.2
Bangladesh 156.7 57 40.35
China 972.2 741.15 532.04 388.82 235.05 182.61
Dominican Republic 1.832
Egypt 227.4
India 343.6
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 105
Mexico 6
Pakistan 34.9 39.6 24.1
Russian Federation 332 312 312 307 297 75
Syrian Arab Republic 44.68
United States of America 92
Annex B, Group II (Carbon tetrachloride)

China 80 70
All quantities expressed in metric tonnes.
590
Summary by year of essential use exemptions
Summary 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Chlorofluorocarbons 13,869.61 13,530.5 11,988.68 9,882.33 8,366.75 6,792.8 7,133.6 7,048.75 7,720 3,321.1 2,039
Halons 352 300 255 160 90
Carbon tetrachloride 2.05
1,1,1-trichloroethane 59.7 60.5 60.1 59.6 58.4 58.4
(methyl chloroform)
HBFCs and 0.025
Bromochloromethane
TOTAL 14,281.31 13,891 12,303.78 10,101.93 8,515.15 6,851.2 7,133.6 7,050.825 7,720 3,321.1 2,039
Summary 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Chlorofluorocarbons 1,928 937 682 2,488.312 1,262.95 908.49 695.82 532.05 257.61
Carbon tetrachloride 80 70
TOTAL 1,928 937 682 2,488.312 1,262.95 908.49 695.82 532.05 337.61 70
591
Conditions applied to exemption for laboratory and analytical uses
[Source: Annex II of the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties]

1. Laboratory purposes are identified at this time to include equipment calibration; use as extraction
solvents, diluents, or carriers for chemical analysis; biochemical research; inert solvents for chemical
reactions, as a carrier or laboratory chemical and other critical analytical and laboratory purposes.
Production for laboratory and analytical purposes is authorized provided that these laboratory and
analytical chemicals shall contain only controlled substances manufactured to the following purities:
%
CTC (reagent grade) 99.5
1,1,1-trichloroethane 99.0
CFC-11 99.5
CFC-13 99.5
CFC-12 99.5
CFC-113 99.5
CFC-114 99.5
Other w/Boiling P>20o C 99.5
ESSENTIAL USE
EXEMPTIONS
Other w/Boiling P<20o C 99.0
2. These pure controlled substances can be subsequently mixed by manufacturers, agents, or distributors
with other chemicals controlled or not controlled by the Montreal Protocol as is customary for laboratory
and analytical uses.
3. These high purity substances and mixtures containing controlled substances shall be supplied only in re-
closable containers or high pressure cylinders smaller than three litres or in 10 millilitre or smaller glass
ampoules, marked clearly as substances that deplete the ozone layer, restricted to laboratory use and
analytical purposes and specifying that used or surplus substances should be collected and recycled, if
practical. The material should be destroyed if recycling is not practical.
4. Parties shall annually report for each controlled substance produced: the purity; the quantity; the
application, specific test standard, or procedure requiring its uses; and the status of efforts to eliminate its
use in each application. Parties shall also submit copies of published instructions, standards,
specifications, and regulations requiring the use of the controlled substance.
Categories and examples of laboratory uses

[Source: Annex IV of the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties. (See also laboratory uses subsequently
excluded in decision VII/11 and those eliminated in decision XI/15.)]
(This list is not exhaustive.)
1. Research and development (e.g. pharmaceutical, pesticide, CFC and HCFC substitutes)
1.1 Reaction solvent or reaction feedstock (e.g. Diels-Alder and Friedel-Craft Reactions, RuO3
oxidation, allelic side bromination, etc.)
2. Analytical uses and regulated applications (including quality control)
2.1 Reference
– Chemical (ODS monitoring, volatile organic compound (VOC) Detection, Equipment Calibration)
– Toxicant
– Product (adhesive bond strength, breathing filter test)
592
2.2 Extraction
– Pesticide and heavy metal detection (e.g. in food)
– Oil mist analysis
– Colour and food additive detection
– Oil detection in water and soil
2.3 Diluent
– Zinc, copper, cadmium detection in plants and food
– Microchemical methods to determine molecular weight or oxygen
– Measuring drug purity and residual determination
– Sterilization of lab equipment
ESSENTIAL USE
EXEMPTIONS
2.4 Carrier (Inert)
– Forensic methods (e.g. fingerprinting)
– Titration (cholesterol in eggs, drug chemical characteristics, “Iodine value”, e.g. in oils and chemical
products)
– Analytical equipment (Spectroscopy (Infra-red, Ultra-violet, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance,

fluorescence), chromatography (High-pressure liquid chromatography, gas chromatography, thin-
layer chromatography)
2.5 Tracer
– Sanitary engineering
2.6 Miscellaneous (including testing)
– Ingredient in material for testing (e.g. asphalt, metal fatigue and fracturing)
– Separation media (separation of extraneous materials such as filth and insect excreta from stored
food products)
3. Miscellaneous (including biochemical)
3.1 Laboratory method development
3.2 Sample preparation using solvent
3.3 Heat transfer medium
593
Reporting Accounting Framework for Essential Uses other than Laboratory and Analytical Applications
[Source: Annex IV of the report of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties]
1
A B C D E F G H I J K L M2
(D + E) (C - F) (H + F) (I – J - L)
Year of Ozone Amount Amount Amount Total Authorized On Hand Available Used for Quantity Destroyed On Hand end
Essential Depleting Exempted for Acquired by Acquired for Essential Acquired but not Start of for use in Essential contained in of Year2
use Substances year of Production uses by import & for Acquired the current year use Exported
Essential use3 Countries of Essential Year1 Product
Manufacture use
Amount Country (s)
Notes:
1. National Governments may not be able to estimate quantities on hand as at 1 January 1996 but can track the subsequent inventory of ODS produced for essential uses
(Column M).
2. Carried forward as “on hand start of the year” for next year.
3. Note that essential use for a particular year may be the sum of quantities authorized by decision in more than one year.
594
Section 3.3
Assessment panels
Terms of reference for the panels
[Source: Annex VI of the report of the First Meeting of the Parties]
I. Panel for Scientific Assessment
1. The Panel for Scientific Assessment shall be responsible for undertaking the review of the scientific
knowledge in a timely manner as dictated by the needs of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
2. The currently available new scientific knowledge acquired since the adoption of the Montreal Protocol
shall be compiled into a report which shall be ready for submission to the Integration Working Group of
the Parties ten months prior to the second meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, at which the assessment
ASSESSMENT
of the control measures will be undertaken.

PANELS
3. The report shall be consolidated with three other review reports on environmental, economic and
technical knowledge. The Integration Working Group of the Parties will be responsible for consolidating
the four reports and preparing recommendations to the Parties on the assessment of the control measures
specified in the Montreal Protocol. The Secretariat will formally transmit the consolidated report to the
Parties at least eight months before the second meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.
4. The report shall consist of four chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Chapter 2 – Polar ozone
Chapter 3 – Global trends
Chapter 4 – Model prediction
Each chapter will be 50-100 pages in length with a 5-page summary of the chapter. The report will have a
10-page executive summary which will be written in a style understandable and useful to policy makers.
5. The Panel shall consist of selected experts who are qualified in the field of atmospheric science and
internationally recognized as such. The experts who are best qualified in the subject-matter of the various
chapters shall be selected ensuring the widest possible geographical balance of representation.
6. The Panel shall be organized in the following way:
(a) The Executive Committee of the Chairmen;
(b) The Chapter Chairmen;
(c) The Contributing Authors.
7. The Executive Committee of the Chairmen shall select the experts to participate in the Panel, ensure co-
ordination of the Chapter Chairmen, convene necessary meetings of the Panel and prepare the executive
summary of the report.
595
Section 3.3 Assessment panels
8. The Chapter Chairmen shall ensure effective co-ordination among the Contributing Authors as well as
ensuring co-ordination with the other review panels. They shall compile and prepare the summary of their
respective chapters.
9. The Contributing Authors shall, as directed by the Chapter Chairmen, prepare and submit a brief report
on current knowledge of their topic.
II. Panel for Environmental Assessment
1. The Panel for Environmental Assessment shall be responsible for undertaking the review of the
knowledge concerning the environmental effects of the ozone depletion in a timely manner as dictated by
the needs of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
2. The currently available new environmental knowledge acquired since the adoption of the Montreal
Protocol shall be compiled into a report which shall be ready for submission to the Integration Working
Group of the Parties ten months prior to the second meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, at which the
assessment of the control measures will be undertaken.
3. The report shall be consolidated with three other review reports on scientific, economic and technical
ASSESSMENT
knowledge. The Integration Working Group of the Parties will be responsible for consolidating the four
PANELS
reports and preparing recommendations to the Parties on the assessment of the control measures specified
in the Montreal Protocol. The Secretariat will formally transmit the consolidated report to the Parties at
least eight months before the second meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.
4. The report shall consist of seven chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Chapter 2 – Solar interactions
Chapter 3 – Human health
Chapter 4 – Terrestrial plants
Chapter 5 – Aquatic ecosystems
Chapter 6 – Tropospheric air quality
Chapter 7 – Materials damage
Each chapter will be 5-25 pages in length and consist of the following:
– Summary
– Introduction or background
– State of science
– Assessment of results
– Research needs
– References
The report shall have an executive summary of approximately 10 pages written in a style understandable
and useful to policy makers.
596
5. The Panel shall consist of selected experts who are qualified in the fields related to the environmental
effects of ozone depletion and internationally recognized as such. The experts who are best qualified in
the subject-matter of the various chapters shall be selected ensuring the widest possible geographical
balance of representation.
6. The Panel shall be organized in the following way:
(a) The Chairman;
(b) The Chapter Chairmen;
(c) The Contributing Authors;
(d) The Reviewers.
7. The Chairman shall ensure co-ordination of the Chapter Chairmen, convene necessary meetings of the
Panel, prepare the executive summary of the report with the Chapter Chairmen, and select the experts to
participate in the Panel.
ASSESSMENT
8. The Chapter Chairmen shall ensure effective co-ordination among the Contributing Authors as well as
PANELS
ensuring co-ordination with the other review panels. The Chapter Chairmen shall compile and lead the
preparation of the summary of their respective chapters. The Chapter Chairmen shall also assist the
Chairman in the preparation of the executive summary of the report.
9. The Contributing Authors shall, as directed by the Chapter Chairmen, prepare and submit a brief report of
the current knowledge of their topic. The Contributing Authors shall also assist the Chapter Chairmen in
the preparation of the chapter summary.
10. The Reviewers shall review the draft report and make necessary comments before the final submission of
the report to the Integration Working Group of the Parties.
Terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

and its technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies
[Source: Annex to decision XXIV/8]
1. Scope of work
The tasks undertaken by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) are those specified in Article
6 of the Montreal Protocol in addition to those requested from time to time at Meetings of the Parties. TEAP
analyses and presents technical information and recommendations when specifically requested. It does not
evaluate policy issues and does not recommend policy. TEAP presents technical and economic information
relevant to policy. Furthermore, TEAP does not judge the merit or success of national plans, strategies, or
regulations.
To carry out its work programme, technical options committees (TOCs) are established and agreed to by a
decision of the parties. TEAP may also establish temporary subsidiary bodies (TSBs), as needed. These bodies
generally will not last for more than one year and are aimed at responding to specific requests made by the
parties.
2.1 Size and balance
2.1.0
The overall goal is to achieve a representation of about 50 per cent for Article 5(1) Parties in the TEAP and
TOCs and appropriate representation of expertise in the different alternatives.
2.1.1 TEAP
597
The membership size of the TEAP should be about 18-22 members, including 2 or 3 co-chairs to allow it to
function effectively. It should include the co-chairs of the TOCs; there should be two co-chairs per TOC and 2-4
Senior Experts for specific expertise not covered by the TEAP co-chairs or TOC co-chairs, taking into account
gender and geographical balance.
At least one and preferably all of the TEAP co-chairs should not simultaneously serve as a TOC co-chair.
2.1.2 TOCs
Each TOC should have two co-chairs. The positions of TOC co-chairs must be filled to promote a geographical,
gender and expertise balance. TEAP, through its TOC co-chairs, shall compose its TOCs to reflect a balance of
appropriate and anticipated expertise so that their reports and information are comprehensive, objective and
policy-neutral.
2.1.3 TSBs
TEAP, in consultation with the TSB co-chairs, shall compose its TSBs to reflect a balance of appropriate
expertise so that their reports and information are comprehensive, objective and policy-neutral. TEAP, acting
through the TSB co-chairs, shall provide a description in reports by TSBs on how their composition was
ASSESSMENT
determined. TSB members, including co-chairs, who are not already members of the TEAP, do not become
PANELS
members of the TEAP by virtue of their service on the TSB.
2.2 Nominations
2.2.1 TEAP
Nominations of members to the TEAP, including co-chairs of the TEAP and TOCs, must be made by individual
Parties to the Secretariat through their respective national focal points. Such nominations will be forwarded to
the Meeting of the Parties for consideration. The TEAP co-chairs shall ensure that any potential nominee
identified by TEAP for appointment to the Panel, including co-chairs of TEAP and the TOCs, is agreed to by the
national focal points of the relevant party. A member of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs shall not be a current
representative of a party to the Montreal Protocol.
2.2.2. TOCs and TSBs
All nominations to TOCs and TSBs shall be made in full consultation with the national focal point of the
relevant party.
Nominations of members to a TOC (other than TOC co-chairs) may be made by individual parties or TEAP and
TOC co-chairs may suggest to individual parties experts to consider nominating. Nominations to a TSB
(including TSB co-chairs) can be made by the TEAP Co-chairs
2.3 Appointment of members of TEAP
In keeping with the intent of the parties for a periodic review of the composition of the assessment panel, the
Meeting of the Parties shall appoint the members of TEAP for a period of no more than four years. The Meeting
of the Parties may re-appoint Members of the Panel upon nomination by the relevant party for additional periods
of up to four years each. In appointing or re-appointing members of TEAP, the parties should ensure continuity,
balance as well as a reasonable turnover.
2.4 Co-chairs
In nominating and appointing co-chairs of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs, parties should consider the following factors:
(e) Co-chairs should have experience or skills in managing, coordinating, and building consensus in technical
bodies, in addition to possessing technical expertise in relevant areas;
(f) The co-chairs of a TOC should not normally act as co-chairs of another TOC; and
598
(g) The co-chairs of TEAP should not be co-chairs of a TOC;
(h) The TEAP and TOC co-chairs may suggest to individual parties experts to consider nominating.
2.5 Appointment of members of TOCs
Each TOC should have about 20 members. The TOC members are appointed by the TOC co-chairs, in
consultation with TEAP, for a period of no more than four years. TOC members may be re-appointed following
the procedure for nominations for additional periods of up to four years each.
2.6 Subsidiary bodies
Temporary Subsidiary Technical Bodies (TSBs) can be appointed by TEAP to report on specific issues of
limited duration. TEAP may appoint and dissolve, subject to review by the parties, such subsidiary bodies of
technical experts when they are no longer necessary. For issues that cannot be handled by the existing TOCs and
are of substantial and continuing nature, TEAP should request the establishment by the parties of a new TOC. A
decision of the Meeting of the Parties is required to confirm any TSB that exists for a period of more than one
year.
ASSESSMENT
2.7 Termination of appointment
PANELS
Members of TEAP, a TOC or a TSB may relinquish their position at any time by notifying in writing as
appropriate the co-chairs of the TEAP, TOC or TSB and the relevant party.
TEAP can dismiss a member of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs, including co-chairs of those bodies, by a two-
thirds majority vote of TEAP. A dismissed member has the right to appeal to the next Meeting of the Parties
through the Secretariat. The TEAP co-chairs will inform the relevant party if TEAP is dismissing members.
2.8 Replacement
If a member of TEAP, including TOC co-chairs, relinquishes or is unable to function including if he or she was
dismissed by TEAP, the Panel, after consultation with the nominating party. can temporarily appoint a
replacement from among its bodies for the time up to the next Meeting of the Parties, if necessary to complete its
work. For the appointment of a replacement TEAP member, the procedure set out in paragraph 2.2 should be
followed.
2.9 Guidelines for nominations and matrix of expertise
The TEAP/TOCs will draw up guidelines for nominating experts by the parties. The TEAP/TOCs will publicize
a matrix of expertise available and the expertise needed in the TEAP/TOCs so as to facilitate submission of
appropriate nominations by the parties. The matrix must include the need for geographic and expertise balance
and provide consistent information on expertise that is available and required. The matrix would include the
name and affiliation and the specific expertise required including on different alternatives. The TEAP/TOCs,
acting through their respective co-chairs, shall ensure that the matrix is updated at least once a year and shall
publish the matrix on the Secretariat website and in the Panel’s annual progress reports. The TEAP/TOCs shall
also ensure that the information in the matrix is clear, sufficient and consistent as far as is appropriate between
the TEAP and TOCs and balanced to allow a full understanding of needed expertise.
3. Functioning of TEAP/TOCs/TSBs
3.1 Language
TEAP/TOCs/TSBs meetings will be held and reports and other documents will be produced only in English.
3.2 Meetings
3.2.1 Scheduling
599
The place and time of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs meetings will be fixed by the co-chairs.
3.2.2 Secretariat
The Ozone Secretariat should attend the meetings of the TEAP whenever possible and appropriate to provide
ongoing institutional advice on administrative issues when necessary.
3.2.3 Operating procedures
Co-chairs of the TOCs should organize meetings in accordance with operating procedures developed by the
TOCs in consultation with the Secretariat to ensure full participation of all members, sound and appropriate
decision-making and record keeping. The procedures should be updated periodically and made available to the
parties.
3.3 Rules of procedure
The rules of procedure of the Montreal Protocol for committees and working groups will be followed in
conducting the meetings of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs, unless otherwise stated in these terms of reference for
TEAP/TOCs/TSBs or other decisions approved by a Meeting of the Parties.
ASSESSMENT
PANELS
3.4 Observers
No observers will be permitted at TEAP, TOC or TSB meetings. However, anyone can present information to
the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs with prior notice and can be heard personally if the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs consider it
necessary.
3.5 Functioning by members
The TEAP/TOCs/TSBs members function on a personal basis as experts, irrespective of the source of their
nominations and accept no instruction from, nor function as representatives of Governments, industries, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) or other organizations.
4. Report of TEAP/TOCs/TSBs
4.1 Procedures
The reports of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs will be developed through a consensus process. The reports must reflect
any minority views appropriately.
4.2 Access
Access to materials and drafts considered by the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs will be available only to TEAP/TOCs
members or others designated by TEAP/TOCs/TSBs.
4.3 Review by TEAP
The final reports of TOCs and TSBs will be reviewed by the TEAP and will be forwarded, without modification
(other than editorial or factual corrections which have been agreed with the co-chairs of the relevant TOC or
TSB) by TEAP to the Meeting of the Parties, together with any comments TEAP may wish to provide. Any
factual errors in the reports may be rectified through a corrigendum following publication, upon receipt by
TEAP or the TOC of supporting documentation.
4.4 Comment by public
Any member of the public can comment to the co-chairs of the TOCs and TSBs with regard to their reports and
they must respond as early as possible. If there is no response, these comments can be sent to the TEAP co-
chairs for consideration by TEAP.
600
5. Code of conduct for Members of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and
its bodies
Code of Conduct
Members of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs have been asked by the parties to undertake important
responsibilities. As such, a high standard of conduct defined in accordance with the principles of transparency,
predictability, accountability, trustworthiness, integrity, responsibility and disclosure is expected of members in
discharging their duties. In order to assist members, the following guidelines have been developed as a Code of
Conduct that must be followed by the members of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs.
1. This Code of Conduct is intended to protect Members of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs from conflicts of
interest in their participation. Compliance with the measures detailed in these guidelines is a condition for
serving as a Member of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs.
2. The Code is to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the process while encouraging experienced
and competent persons to accept TEAP, TOC and/or TSB membership by:
(a) Establishing clear guidelines respect to conflict of interest and disclosure while and after serving as a
ASSESSMENT
member; and
PANELS
(b) Minimizing the possibility of conflicts arising between the private interest and public duties of members
and by providing for the resolution of such conflicts, in the public interest, should they arise.
3. In carrying out their duties, members shall:
(a) Perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in such a manner that public confidence and
trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs are conserved and
enhanced;
(b) Act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by
simply acting within the law of any country;
(c) Act in good faith for the best interest of the process;
(d) Exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable
circumstances;
(e) Not give preferential treatment to anyone or any interest in any official manner related to TEAP, the
TOCs or the TSBs;
(f) Not solicit or accept significant gifts, hospitality or other benefits from persons, groups or organizations
having or likely to have dealings with TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs;
(g) Not accept transfers of economic benefit, other than incidental gifts, customary hospitality or other
benefits of nominal value, unless the transfer is pursuant to an enforceable contract or property right of the
member;
(h) Not represent or assist any outside interest in dealings before TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs;
(i) Not knowingly take advantage of, or benefit from, information that is obtained in the course of their
duties and responsibilities as a member of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs, and that is not generally
available to the public; and
(j) Not act, after their term of office as members of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs in such a manner as to take
improper advantage of their previous office.
601
4. To avoid the possibility or appearance that members of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs might receive
preferential treatment, members shall not seek preferential treatment for themselves or third parties or act
as paid intermediaries for third parties in dealings with TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs.
6. Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Guidelines for the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, Its Technical Options Committees and Temporary Subsidiary Bodies
Definitions
1. For the purposes of these Guidelines:
(a) “Conflict of interest” means any current interest of a member, or of that member’s personal partner or
dependant which, in the opinion of a reasonable person does or appears to:
(i) Significantly impair that individual’s objectivity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities for TEAP,
the TOC or the TSB; or
(ii) Create an unfair advantage for any person or organization;

ASSESSMENT
(b) “Member” means member including co-chairs of TEAP, the TOCs and/or the TSBs;
PANELS
(c) “Recusal” means that a member does not participate in particular elements of TEAP, TOC or TSB work
because of a conflict of interest; and
(d) “Conflict resolution advisory body” means the body appointed under paragraph 22.
Purposes
2. The overall purpose of these Guidelines is to protect the legitimacy, integrity, trust, and credibility of the
TEAP, TOCS and TSBs and of those directly involved in the preparation of reports and activities.
3. The role of the TEAP, TOCs and TSBs demands that they pay special attention to issues of independence
and bias in order to maintain the integrity of, and public confidence in, their products and processes. It is
essential that the work of TEAP and its TOCs and TSBs is not compromised by any conflict of interest.
4. Written agreement to comply with these Guidelines is a condition for service as a Member.
5. These Guidelines are to enhance public confidence in the process, while encouraging experienced and
competent persons to serve on the TEAP, TOC and/or TSB, by:
(a) Establishing clear guidance with respect to disclosure and conflict of interest while serving as a Member;
(b) Minimizing the possibility of conflicts of interest arising with respect to Members, and by providing for
the resolution of such conflicts, in the public interest, should they arise; and
(c) Finding the balance between the needs:
(i) To identify the appropriate disclosure requirements, and
(ii) To ensure the integrity of the TEAP process.
6. These Guidelines are principle-based and do not provide an exhaustive list of criteria for the identification
of conflicts.
7. TEAP, the TOCS, the TSBs and their members should not be in a situation that could lead a reasonable
person to question, and perhaps discount or dismiss, their work because of the existence of a conflict of
interest.
602
Disclosure
8. Members are to disclose annually any potential conflicts of interest. They must also disclose the source of
any funding for their participation in the work of the TEAP, TOC and/or TSB. An illustrative list of other
interests that should be disclosed is provided in Annex A to these Guidelines.
9. Members are to disclose any material change to previously submitted information within 30 days of any
such change.
10. Notwithstanding paragraphs 8 and 9, a member may decline to disclose information related to activities,
interests and funding where its disclosure would adversely and materially affect:
(a) Defence, national security or imminent public safety;
(b) The course of justice in prospective or current court cases;
(c) The ability to assign future intellectual property rights; or
(d) The confidentiality of commercial, government, or industrial information.
ASSESSMENT
PANELS
11. Members who decline to disclose information under paragraph 10 must declare that they are doing so in
their disclosure of interest under paragraphs 8 or 9 and must be completely excluded from discussions and
decisions on related topics.
Conflict of interest
12. A member’s strong opinion (sometimes referred to as bias), or particular perspective, regarding a
particular issue or set of issues does not create a conflict of interest. It is expected that the TEAP, TOCs
and TSBs will include members with different perspectives and affiliations, which should be balanced so
far as possible.
13. These Guidelines apply only to current conflicts of interest. They do not apply to past interests that have
expired, no longer exist and cannot reasonably affect current assessment. Nor do they apply to possible
interests that may arise in the future but that do not currently exist, as such interests are inherently
speculative and uncertain. For example, a pending application for a particular job is a current interest, but
the mere possibility that one might apply for such a job in the future is not a conflict of interest.
Procedures
14. All of the bodies involved in advising on and deciding conflict of interest issues under these Guidelines
should consult the relevant member where the body has concerns about a potential conflict of interest
and/or where it requires clarification of any matters arising out of a member’s disclosure. Such bodies
should ensure that the relevant individuals and, where appropriate, the nominating Party, have an
opportunity to discuss any concerns about a potential conflict of interest.
15. In the event that an issue regarding a potential conflict of interest arises, the relevant member and co-
chairs should attempt to resolve the issue through consultations, including consultations with the advisory
body. If the consultations reach an impasse, TEAP could request the Executive Secretary to select an
outside mediator to assist in resolving the matter. The mediator should not be a member and should not
otherwise have any current affiliation with the relevant individuals, bodies or issues.
16. At any point, the conflict resolution advisory body may be consulted by members or potential members
regarding issues related to:
(a) Member disclosures;
(b) Potential conflicts of interest or other ethics issues; or
603
(c) Potential recusal of members.
17. The conflict resolution advisory body must promptly inform a member if it has been asked to advise on an
issue regarding the member. Any information provided to and any advice provided by the conflict
resolution advisory body will be considered confidential and will not be used for any purpose other than
consideration of conflict of interest issues under these Guidelines without the express consent of the
individual providing the information or requesting the advice, as appropriate.
18. If an issue under these Guidelines cannot be resolved through the procedures in paragraphs 14 through 17:
(a) A TEAP member, including TEAP and TOC co-chairs, may be recused from a defined area of work only
by a three-fourths majority of TEAP (excluding the individual whose recusal is at issue).
(b) A TOC or TSB member, excluding TEAP and TOC co-chairs, may be recused from a defined area of
work by the co-chairs of the relevant TOC or, upon appeal, by a three-fourths majority of TEAP.
19. In the event of the procedure under the previous paragraph taking place, the Member whose recusal is at
issue may not participate. In the event that the matter is brought to the TEAP consistent with paragraph
18, the Member whose recusal is under discussion, should be excluded from those discussions.
ASSESSMENT
PANELS
Recusal
20. When a conflict of interest is determined to exist with respect to a particular Member, the Member should,
depending on what is appropriate in the circumstances, be:
(a) Excluded from decision-making and discussions related to a defined area of work;
(b) Excluded from decision-making but may participate in discussions related to a defined area of work; or
(c) Excluded from participation in the matter in any other manner deemed appropriate.
21. A Member who is recused completely or partially from an area of work may nevertheless answer
questions with respect to that work at the request of the TEAP, TOC or TSB.
Conflict resolution advisory body
22. The conflict resolution advisory body is not envisioned as a body that will meet on any regular basis but
will come together, physically or virtually, as needed to provide advice to members or potential members
and assist with resolving issues. It shall consist of Co-Chairs of the Open-Ended Working Group and the
President of the Bureau of the Meeting of the Parties, with the Ozone Secretariat providing logistical,
technical legal and administrative support and advice to the body. No additional travel support or other
financial support will be provided to members serving on the body.
Annex to the terms of reference
(f) A current proprietary interest of a member or his/her personal partner or dependent in a substance,
technology or process (e.g., ownership of a patent) to be considered by the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel or any of its technical options committees or temporary subsidiary bodies;
(g) A current financial interest of a member or his/her personal partner or dependent, e.g., shares or bonds in
an entity with an interest in the subject matter of the meeting or work (but not shareholdings through
general mutual funds or similar arrangements where the expert has no control over the selection of
shares);
(h) A current employment, consultancy, directorship or other position held by a Member or his/her personal
partner or dependent, whether or not paid, in any entity which has an interest in the subject matter of the
604
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. This element of disclosure also includes paid consultancy
efforts performed on behalf of an implementing agency to assist developing countries to adopt
alternatives;
(i) The provision of advice on significant issues to a government with respect to its implementation of the
Montreal Protocol or engaging in the development of significant policy positions of a government for a
Montreal Protocol meeting;
(j) Performance of any paid research activities or receipt of any fellowships or grants for work related to a
proposed use of an ozone-depleting substance or an alternative to a proposed use of an ozone depleting
substance.
ASSESSMENT
PANELS
605
Section 3.4
Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide
Critical-use exemptions approved by Meetings of the Parties
First Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex II of the report of the First Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties]
A. Agreed critical-use categories
Country Categories of permitted critical uses (metric tonnes)

Australia Cut flowers – field (18.375); Cut flowers – protected (10.425); Cut flowers, bulbs – protected (7); Rice
(consumer packs) (6.15); Strawberry fruit – field (67); Strawberry runners (35.75);
Belgium Asparagus (planting material) (0.63); Chicory (0.18); Cucurbits (0.61); Cut flowers (excluding roses and
chrysanthemum) (4); Cut flowers (chrysanthemum) (1.12); Leeks and onions – planting stock (0.66); Lettuce
METHYL BROMIDE
and endive – protected (25.19); Nursery (0.9); Orchard – pome fruit and berries – replant (1.35); Pepper,
CRITICAL USES
eggplant – protected (3); Strawberry runners (3.4); Tomatoes – protected (5.7); Tree nursery (0.23)
Canada Pasta and flour mills (47); Strawberry runners (7.952)
France Carrots (8); Chestnuts (2); Cut flowers, bulbs – protected and open field (60); Eggplant, pepper, tomato –
protected and field (125); Forest nurseries (10); Mills and processors (40); Orchard and raspberry – replant
(25); Orchard and raspberry nurseries (5); Rice (consumer packs) (2); Strawberry runners (40); Strawberry
fruit – protected and open field (90);
Greece Cucurbits – protected (30); Tomato – protected (156);
Italy Cut flowers, bulbs – protected (250); Eggplant – protected (194); Melon – protected (131); Pepper – protected
(160); Strawberry fruit – protected (407); Strawberry runners (120); Tomato – protected (871);
Japan Chestnuts (4.6); Cucumber (39.4); Melon (94.5); Peppers (74.1); Watermelon (71.4)
Portugal Cut flowers – protected and open field (50);
Spain Cut flowers (Andalusia) – protected (53); Cut flowers (Catalonia) – carnation, protected and open field (20);
Peppers – protected (200); Strawberry fruit – protected (556); Strawberry runners (230)
United Cheese stores (traditional) (1.640); Food storage (dry goods) – structure (1.1); Mills and processors (47.13);
Kingdom Miscellaneous dry nuts, fruit, beans, cereals, seeds (2.4); Ornamental tree nurseries (6); Spices
(structural/equipment) (1.728); Stored spices (0.03); Strawberries and raspberries – fruit (68); Tobacco
(product/machinery) (0.050)
United Chrysanthemum cuttings – rose plants (nursery) (29.412); Cucurbits – field (1187.8); Dried fruit, beans and
States of nuts (86.753); Eggplant – field (73.56); Forest nursery seedlings (192.515); Fruit tree nurseries (45.8); Ginger
America production – field (9.2); Mills and processors (483); Orchard replant (706.176); Peppers – field (1085.3);
Smokehouse ham – (building and product) (0.907); Strawberry fruit – field (1833.846); Strawberry runners
(54.988); Sweet potato – field (80.83); Tomato − field (2865.3); Turfgrass (206.827)
606
Section 3.4 Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide
B. Permitted levels of production and consumption of methyl bromide necessary to satisfy critical uses in
2005
Country (metric tonnes of methyl bromide)

Australia 145
Belgium* 47
Canada 55
France* 407
Greece* 186
Italy* 2,133
Japan 284
Portugal* 50
Spain* 1,059
United Kingdom* 128
United States of America 7,659
* The production and consumption of the European Community shall not exceed 3,910 metric tonnes for
the purposes of the agreed critical uses, and 100 metric tonnes of stocks.
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties
[Source: Annex to Decision XVI/2]
Section IA: 2005 – agreed supplemental critical-use categories

Australia Almonds (1.9)
Belgium Mills (0.2), electronic equipment (0.1), woodworking premises (0.3), food premises (0.3), food storage
dry structure (0.12), old buildings (1.15), empty silo (0.05), food processing premises (0.03), flour mill
(9.515), artefacts and structures (0.59), churches, monuments and ships quarters (0.15), antique
structures and furniture (0.319)
Canada Strawberry runners (6.84)
France Cucurbits (60), melon (7.5), seeds post harvest (0.135)
Germany Artefacts (0.25), mills and processors (45)
Greece Cut flowers (14), dried fruit (4.28), mills and processors (23)
Israel Artefacts (0.65), cut flowers, protected (303), cut flowers, open fields (77), dates post harvest (3.444),
flour mills – machinery and storages (2.14), furniture imported (1.422), fruit tree nurseries (50), potato
(239), strawberry runners (35), strawberry fruit (196), melon (125.65), seed production (56)
Italy Mills and processors (160), artefacts (5.225)
Japan Chestnut (2.5), cucumber (48.9), ginger field (119.4), ginger protected (22.9), melon (99.6), watermelon
(57.6), peppers hot (23.2), peppers green (89.9)
Netherlands Strawberry runners (0.12)
New Zealand Strawberry fruit (42), strawberry runners (8)
Poland Strawberry runners (40), dry commodities (4.1)
Switzerland Mills and processors (8.7)
United Mills and processors biscuits (2.525), spices (building) (3.0), spices and pappadum (0.035), woven
Kingdom baskets (0.77)
United States Dried fruit and nuts (2.413), eggplant field (3.161), peppers field (9.482), tomato field (10.746), dry
of America commodities structures (cocoa) (61.519), dry commodities – processed foods, herbs, spices, dried milk
(83.344), ornamentals (154), smokehouse ham (67), strawberry fruit (219)
607
Section IB: 2005 – permitted supplemental levels of production and consumption

Australia 1.9
Belgium* 12.824
Canada 6.84
France* 67.635
Germany* 45.25
Greece* 41.28
Israel 1074
Italy* 165.225
Japan 464
Netherlands* 0.12
New Zealand 40.5
Poland* 44.1
Switzerland 8.7
United Kingdom* 6.33
* The supplementary production and consumption of the European Community shall not exceed 382.764
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
metric tonnes for the purposes of the agreed supplementary critical uses.
Section IIA: 2006 agreed critical-use categories

Australia Almonds (2.1), cut flowers (22.35), cut flowers bulbs protected (5.25), rice consumer packs (6.15),
strawberry runners (30)
Belgium Food premises (0.3)
Canada Strawberry runners (8.666), flour mills (27.8), pasta manufacturing facilities (8.4)
France Carrots (8), chestnut (2), cucurbits (60), forest nurseries (10), orchard and raspberry replant (25), orchard
and raspberry nurseries (5), peppers (27.5), rice consumer packs (2), seeds post harvest (0.135),
strawberry fruit (86), strawberry runners (40), cut flowers bulbs (52), eggplant (22), tomato (48.4), melon
(6.0), mills and processors (35)
Israel Artefacts and libraries (0.65), cut flower open field (67), flour mills machinery and storages (1.49), fruit
tree nurseries (45), strawberry fruit (196), strawberry runners (35), dates post harvest (2.755), cut flowers
protected (240), melon (99.4), potato (165), seed production (28)
Italy Strawberry runners (120), strawberry fruit protected (320), tomato protected (697), eggplant protected
(156), cut flowers bulbs protected (187), melon protected (131), pepper protected (130), artefacts (5.225)
Japan Chestnuts (6.5), cucumber (87.6), ginger field (119.4), ginger protected (22.9), melon (171.6),
watermelon (60.9), peppers green (98.4), peppers hot (13.9)
New Zealand Strawberry fruit (34), strawberry runners (8)
Poland Strawberry runners (40), dry commodities (3.56)
Spain Peppers protected (155), strawberry fruit protected (499.29), strawberry runners (230), cut flowers
protected (42), cut flowers protected and open field (15)
Switzerland Mills and processors (7.0)
United Ornamental tree nurseries (6), raspberry nurseries (4.4), strawberry fruit (54.5)
Kingdom
United States Cucurbits – field (747.839), dried fruit and nuts (80.649), forest nursery seedlings (157.694), nursery
of America stock – fruit trees, raspberries, roses (64.528), strawberry runners (56.291), turfgrass (131.6), dry
commodities cocoa beans (46.139), dry commodities/structures (56.253), eggplant field (81.253), mills
and processors (394.843), peppers field (806.877), strawberry fruit field (1523.180), tomato field
(2222.934), orchard replant (527.6)
608
Section IIB: 2006 – permitted levels of production and consumption

Australia 65.85
Belgium* 0.3
Canada 44.866
France* 429.035
Israel 880.295
Italy* 1746.225
Japan 581.2
New Zealand 40.5
Poland* 43.56
Spain* 941.29
Switzerland 7
United Kingdom * 64.9
* The production and consumption of the European Community shall not exceed 3,225.310 metric tonnes
for the purposes of the agreed critical uses.
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
Section III – 2006 Approved critical-use nominations under paragraph 5
Party 2006 Approved critical-use nominations under paragraph 5 (metric tonnes)

Australia Cut flowers – bulbs – protected (1.75); rice – consumer packs (6.15); strawberry runners (7.5)
Canada Flour mills (6.974); Pasta manufacturing facilities (2.057);
France Cut flowers, bulbs – protected and open field (8.25); eggplant (5.5); melon (4.0); mills and processors
(5); tomato (12.1);
Israel Cut flowers – protected (63); dates - postharvest (0.689); melon protected – in field (42.6); seed
production (22)
Italy Artefacts (0.275); cut flowers – bulbs – protected (63); eggplant – protected (44); melon – protected (4);
peppers – protected (30); strawberry fruit – protected (80); tomato – protected (333)
Japan Peppers – green (65.6); peppers – hot (9.3)
New Zealand Strawberry fruit (8); strawberry runners (2)
Spain Cut flowers – Cadiz/Sevilla – protected (11); cut flowers (Cataluna – carnation, protected and open field
(3.6);
United Strawberry fruit (9.1)
Kingdom
United States Dry commodities/structures (cocoa beans) (15.38); dry commodities/structures (processed foods, herbs
of America and spices, and cheese processing facilities) (27.091); eggplant – field (20.933); mills and processors
(111.139); orchard replant (300.394); peppers – field (694.497); strawberry fruit – field (397.597);
tomato – field (627.552)
Second Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision Ex.II/1]
Table A: Agreed critical-use categories

Australia Cut-flowers (1.75); Strawberry runners (7.5)
Canada Pasta manufacturing facilities (2.057); Flour mills (6.974)
Japan Peppers (hot) (9.3); Peppers (green) (65.6)
United Ornamentals (148.483); dry-cured ham (40.854); Dry commodities/structures (cocoa beans) (9.228); Dry
States of commodities/structures (processed foods, herbs and spices, dried milk and cheese processing facilities)
America (12.865); Eggplant – field, for research only (0.914); Mills and processors (66.915); Peppers – field
(436.665); Strawberry fruit – field (207.648); Tomato – field (253.431)
609
Table B: Permitted levels of production and consumption of methyl bromide to satisfy critical uses in 2006
Country Methyl bromide (metric tonnes)

Australia 9.250
Canada 9.031
Japan 74.900
Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision XVII/9]
Table A. 2006 agreed critical-use categories

Belgium Antique structures and furniture (0.199), Artefacts and structures (0.307), Asparagus (0.225), Berry fruit
(0.621), Chicory (0.18), Churches, monuments and ships’ quarters (0.059), Cucumber (0.545), Cut
flowers (1.956), Electronic equipment (0.035), Empty silo (0.043), Endive (1.65), Flour mill (0.072),
Flour mills (4.17), Food premises (0.03), Mills (0.2), Nursery (0.384), Old buildings (0.306), Old
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
buildings (0.282), Pepper and eggplant (1.35), Strawberry runners (0.9), Tomato (protected) (4.5), Tree
nursery (0.155), Woodworking premises (0.101)
Germany Artefacts (0.1), mills and processors (19.35)
Greece Dried fruit (3.081), Cucurbits (19.2), Cut flowers (6.0), Mills and processors (15.445), Rice and legumes
(2.355), Tomatoes (73.6)
Ireland Mills (0.888)
Italy Mills and processors (65.0)
Japan Chestnut (0.3), Cucumber (1.2), Melon (32.3), Peppers (green & hot) (13.5), Watermelon (38.0)
Latvia Grains (2.502)
Malta Cucumber (0.127), Eggplant (0.17), Strawberry (0.212), Tomatoes (0.594)
Poland Coffee, cocoa beans (2.160)
Portugal Cut flowers (8.75)
Spain Rice (42.065)
United Cereal processing plants (8.131), Cheese stores (1.248), Cut flowers (6.05), Dried commodities (rice,
Kingdom fruits and nuts) Whitworths (1.256), Herbs and spices (0.037), Mills (Nabim) (10.195), Mills and
processors (biscuits) (1.787), Structures (herbs and spices) (1.872), Structures, processors and storage
Whitworths (0.880)
United States Dried beans (7.07)
of America
610
Table B: 2006 permitted levels of production and consumption

Belgium* 18.270
Germany* 19.450
Greece* 119.681
Ireland* 0.888
Italy* 65.000
Japan 85.300
Latvia* 2.502
Malta* 1.103
Netherlands* 0.120
Poland* 2.160
Portugal* 8.750
Spain* 42.065
United Kingdom* 31.456
* The production and consumption of the European Community shall not exceed 311.445 metric tonnes for
the purposes of the agreed critical uses.
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
Table C: 2007 agreed critical-use categories

Australia Rice (consumer packs) (5.13), Strawberry runners (35.75)
Canada Flour mills (30.167), Strawberry runners PEI (7.995), Strawberry runners Quebec (1.826)
Japan Chestnuts (6.5), Cucumbers (72.4), Ginger field (109.701), Ginger protected (14.471), Melon (182.2),
Peppers green and hot (156.7), Watermelon (94.2)
United States Cucurbits (592.891), Dry commodities/structures cocoa beans (64.082), Dried fruit and nuts (78.983),
of America Dry commodities/structures (processed foods, herbs & spices, dried milk and cheese processing
facilities) NPMA (82.771), Dry cure pork products (building and product) (18.998), Eggplant field
(85.363), Forest nursery seedlings (122.032), Mills and processors (401.889), Nursery stock – fruit trees,
raspberries, roses (28.275), Orchard replant (405.400), Ornamentals (137.835), Peppers field (1106.753),
Strawberry fruit field (1476.019), Strawberry runners (4.483), Tomato field (2065.246), Turf grass
(78.040)
Table D: 2007 permitted levels of production and consumption

Australia 40.88
Canada 39.988
Japan 636.172
United States of America 5,149.060
611
Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision XVIII/13]
Table A. 2007 agreed critical-use categories (metric tonnes)

Australia Cut flowers – bulbs – protected (3.598), Rice (4.075)
Canada Pasta (6.757), Strawberry runners (Ontario) (6.129)
France Chestnuts (1.800), Mills (8.000), Seeds (0.096), Carrots (1.400), Cucumbers (12.500), Cut flowers and
bulbs (9.600), Forest nurseries (1.500), Orchard & raspberry nurseries (2.000), Orchard replant (7.000),
Pepper (6.000), Strawberry runners (28.000)
Greece Dried fruit (0.450), Mills & processors (1.340)
Israel Dates (2.200), flour mills (1.040), broomrape (250.000), cucumber (25.000), cut-flowers – bulbs –
protected (220.185), cut-flowers – open field (74.540), fruit tree nurseries (7.500), melon – protected &
field (105.000), potato (137.500), strawberry runners (28.000), strawberry fruit (93.000), tomato
(22.750)
Italy Artefacts (5.000), Mills and processors (25.000), Cut flowers – protected (30.000), Melon – protected
(10.000), Pepper – protected (67.000), Strawberry runners (35.000), Tomatoes protected (80.000)
METHYL BROMIDE

CRITICAL USES
New Zealand Strawberry runners (6.234), Strawberry fruit (12.000)

Poland Coffee & cocoa beans (1.420), Medicinal herbs and mushrooms (1.800), Strawberry runners (24.500)
Spain Cut flowers (Andalucia & Catalonia) (43.490), Peppers (45.000), Strawberry fruit (0.0796 for research),
Strawberry runners (230.000)
United Aircraft (0.165), Cereal processing plants (3.480), Cheese stores (1.248), 13 Mills (4.509), Mills – Food
Kingdom processing (Biscuits) (0.479), Structures (Herbs & spices) (0.908), Structures (Whitworth) (0.257)
Table B: 2007 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes)

Australia 7.673
Canada 12.886
France * 77.896
Greece * 1.790
Israel 966.715
Italy * 252.000
Netherlands * 0.120
New Zealand 18.234
Poland * 27.720
Spain * 318.5696
United Kingdom * 11.046
* The production and consumption of the European Community shall not exceed 689.1416 metric tonnes
for the purposes of the agreed critical uses.
612
Table C: 2008 agreed critical-use categories (metric tonnes)

Australia Cut flowers – bulbs – protected (3.500), Rice (7.400 + 1.8*), Strawberry runners (35.750)
Canada Mills (28.650); Strawberry runners (Prince Edward Island) (7.462)
Japan Chestnuts (6.300), Cucumbers (51.450), Ginger – field (84.075), Ginger – protected (11.100), Melon
(136.650), Pepper green & hot (121.725), Watermelon (32.475)
United States Commodities (58.921), Cocoa beans (NPMA subset) (53.188), NPMA food processing structures (cocoa
of America beans removed) (69.208), Mills and processors (348.237), Smokehouse ham (19.669), Cucurbits – field
(486.757 ), Eggplant – field (66.018), Forest nursery (131.208 ), Nursery stock – fruit, nut, flower
(51.102), Orchard replant (393.720), Ornamentals (138.538), Peppers – field (756.339), Strawberry –
field (1,349.575), Strawberry runners (8.838), Tomatoes – field (1,406.484), Sweet potato slips (18.144)
* All or part of the supplementary amount of 1.8 metric tonnes, if required, is conditional on the Technical
and Economic Assessment Panel’s recommendation in its 2007 progress report.
Table D: 2008 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes)
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
Australia 46.650 + 1.8*
Canada 36.112
Japan 443.775
United States of America 4,595.040
* All or part of the supplementary amount of 1.8 metric tonnes, if required, is conditional on the Technical
and Economic Assessment Panel’s recommendation in its 2007 progress report.
Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision XIX/9]
Table A. 2008 agreed critical-use categories (metric tonnes)
Australia Rice (1.80)*
Canada Pasta (6.067)
Israel Dates (1.800), Flour mills (0.312), Broomrape (250.000), Cucumber – protected (18.750), Cut flowers –
bulbs – protected (114.450), Cut-flowers – open field (44.750), Melon – protected and field (87.500),
Potato (93.750), Sweet potatoes (111.500), Strawberry runners (Sharon and Gaza) (31.900), Strawberry
fruit – protected (Sharon and Gaza) (105.960),
Poland Coffee and cocoa beans (0.500), Medicinal herbs and mushrooms (0.500), Strawberry runners (11.995)
Spain Cut flowers (Andalucia and Catalonia) (17.000), Strawberry runners (215.000), Strawberry and pepper –
research (0.151)
* This amount was first approved in decision XVIII/13, conditional on the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel’s 2007 progress report.
Table B: 2008 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes)

Australia 1.80**
Canada 6.067
Israel 860.672
Poland * 12.995
Spain * 232.151
* The production and consumption of the European Community shall not exceed 245.146 metric tonnes for
the purposes of the agreed critical uses.
** This amount was first approved in decision XVIII/13, conditional on the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel’s 2007 progress report.
613
Table C: 2009 agreed critical-use categories (metric tonnes)

Australia Strawberry runners (29.790), Rice (7.820)
Canada Mills (26.913), Strawberry runners (Prince Edward Island) (7.462)
Japan Chestnuts (5.800), Cucumbers (34.300), Ginger – field (63.056), Ginger – protected (8.325), Melons
(91.100), Peppers green and hot (81.149), Watermelon (21.650)
United States Commodities (45.623), NPMA food processing structures (cocoa beans removed) (54.606), Mills and
of America processors (291.418), Dried cured pork (18.998), Cucurbits (407.091), Eggplant – field (48.691), Forest
nursery seedlings (122.060), Nursery stock – fruit, nut, flower (25.326), Orchard replant (292.756),
Ornamentals (107.136), Peppers – field (548.984), Strawberries – field (1,269.321), Strawberry runners
(7.944), Tomatoes – field (1,003.876), Sweet potato slips (18.144)
Table D: 2009 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes)

Australia 37.610
Canada 34.375
Japan 305.380
METHYL BROMIDE
United States of America 3,961.974*

CRITICAL USES
* Minus available stocks
Twentieth Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision XX/5]
Table A. 2009 agreed critical use categories (metric tonnes)

Canada Pasta (4.74)
Israel Dates (2.100), flour mills (0.300), broomrape (125.000), cut flowers – bulbs – protected (85.431), cut
flowers – open field (34.698), melon – protected and field (87.500), potato (75.000), sweet potatoes
(95.000), strawberry runners (Sharon and Gaza) (28.075), strawberry fruit – protected (Sharon and Gaza)
(77.750)
Table B. 2009 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes)

Canada 4.74
Israel 610.554
Table C. 2010 agreed critical use categories (metric tonnes)

Japan Chestnuts (5.400), cucumbers (30.690), ginger - field (53.400), ginger – protected (8.300), melons
(81.72), pepper - green and hot (72.99), watermelon (14.500)
United States Commodities (19.242), NPMA food processing structures (cocoa beans removed) (37.778), mills and
of America processors (173.023), dried cured pork (4.465), cucurbits (302.974), eggplant – field (32.820), forest
nursery seedlings (117.826), nursery stock – fruit, nut, flower (17.363), orchard replant (215.800),
ornamentals (84.617), peppers – field (463.282), strawberries – field (1007.477), strawberry runners
(4.690), tomatoes – field (737.584), sweet potato slips (14.515)
614
Table D. 2010 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes)

Australia 36.44
Canada 30.34
Japan 267.0
United States of America 2 763.456*
* Minus available stocks.
Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision XXI/11]
Table A. 2010 agreed critical use categories (metric tonnes)

Israel Broomrape protected (12.50), cucumber (15.937), cut flowers & bulbs protected (63.464), cut flowers
open field (28.554), dates (1.04), melon protected & open field (70.00), strawberry fruit – Sharon and
METHYL BROMIDE
Gaza (57.063), strawberry runners – Sharon and Gaza (22.320), sweet potatoes (20.000)
CRITICAL USES
United States Strawberry runners (2.018)
of America
Table B. 2010 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes)

Canada 3.529
Israel 290.878
United States of America 2.018*
Table C. 2011 agreed critical use categories (metric tonnes)

Japan Chestnuts (5.35), cucumbers (27.621), ginger - field (47.450), ginger – protected (7.036), melons
(73.548), pepper - green and hot (65.691), watermelon (13.050)
United States Commodities (5.0), NPMA food processing structures (17.365), mills and processors (135.299), dried
of America cured pork (3.73), cucurbits (195.698), eggplant – field (19.725), forest nursery seedlings (93.547),
nursery stock – fruit, nut, flower (7.955), orchard replant (183.232) ornamentals (64.307), peppers –
field (206.234), strawberries – field (812.709), strawberry runners (6.036), tomatoes – field (292.751),
sweet potato slips (11.612)
Table D. 2011 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes)

Australia 28.710
Canada 19.368
Japan 239.746
615
Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision XXII/6]
Table A. Agreed critical-use categories for 2011 (metric tonnes)

Australia Strawberry runners (5.950)
Israel Broomrape – protected (12.500), cucumbers (12.500), cut flowers and bulbs – protected (52.330), cut
flowers – open field (23.292), melons – protected and open field (35.000), strawberry fruit – Sharon and
Gaza (41.875), strawberry runners – Sharon and Gaza (27.000), sweet potatoes (20.000)
Table B. Permitted levels of production and consumption for 2011 (metric tonnes)

Australia 5.950
Canada 2.084
Israel 224.497
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
Table C. Agreed critical-use categories for 2012 (metric tonnes)

Japan Chestnuts (3.489), cucumbers (26.162), ginger – field (42.235), ginger – protected (6.558), melons
(67.936), peppers – green and hot (61.154), watermelons (12.075)
United States Commodities (2.419), National Pest Management Association food-processing structures (0.200), mills
of America and processors (74.510), dried cured pork (3.730), cucurbits (59.500), eggplant – field (6.904), forest
nursery seedlings (34.230), nursery stock – fruit, nuts, flowers (1.591), orchard replants (18.324),
ornamentals (48.164), peppers – field (28.366), strawberry – field (678.004), strawberry runners (3.752),
tomatoes – field (54.423), sweet potato slips (8.709)
Table D. Permitted levels of production and consumption for 2012 (metric tonnes)

Australia 33.413
Canada 16.281
Japan 219.609
Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision XXIII/4]
Table A Agreed critical-use categories for 2013 (metric tonnes)

Japan Chestnuts (3.317)
United States of Commodities (.822), mills and foodprocessing structures (25.334), dried cured pork (3.730), cucurbits
America (3.886), eggplant – field (1.381), nursery stock – fruit, nuts, flowers (.476), orchard replants (6.230),
ornamentals (40.818), peppers – field (5.604), strawberry – field (461.186), strawberry runners (3.752),
tomatoes – field (9.107)
616
Table B Permitted levels of production and consumption for 2013 (metric tonnes)

Australia 32.134
Canada 13.109
Japan 3.317
* Minus available stocks.
Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision XXIV/5]
Table A. Agreed critical-use categories for 2014 (Metric tonnes)
United States of America Commodities (0.740), mills and food processing structures (22.800), cured
pork (3.730), strawberry – field (415.067)
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
Table B. Permitted levels of production and consumption for 2014 (Metric tonnes)

Australia 30.947
Canada 10.305
a
Minus available stocks
Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision XXV/4]
Table A. Agreed critical-use categories for 2015 (Metric tonnes)
Table B. Permitted levels of production and consumption for 2015 (Metric tonnes)

Australia 29.760
Canada 5.261
a
Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision XXVI/6]
Table A. Agreed critical-use categories (Metric tonnes)
2016
2015
Argentina Strawberry fruit 64.3, green pepper/tomato 70
China Ginger protected 24.0, ginger open field 90.0
Mexico Strawberry nursery 43.539, raspberry nursery 41.418
617
Table B. Permitted levels of production and consumptiona
Country Permitted levels of production and consumptiona

(Metric tonnes)
2016
Australia 29.760
Canada 5.261
2015
Argentina 134.3
China 114.0
Mexico 84.957
a
Minus available stocks
Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex to Decision XXVII/3]
Table A. Agreed critical-use categories (Metric tonnes)
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES

2017
2016
Argentina Strawberry fruit 71.25 ; tomato 58
China Ginger, protected 21.0 ; ginger, open field 78.75
Mexico Strawberry, nursery 43.539 ; raspberry, nursery 41.418
South Africa Mills 5.462 ; houses 68.6
Table B. Permitted levels of production and consumptiona
Country Permitted levels of production and consumptiona

(Metric tonnes)
2017
Australia 29.760
2016
Argentina 129.25
China 99.75
Mexico 84.957
South Africa 74.062
a Minus available stocks
Requirements for annual reporting of critical-use exemptions for methyl

bromide
[Source: Annex I of the report of the First Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties]
A. Introduction
The format proposed here would apply to annual reporting by Parties that have obtained a critical-use exemption
for a particular application. It is not intended to replace the format for requesting a critical-use exemption for a
particular application for the first time.
It should be noted that, in addition to a reporting format for holders of multiple-year exemptions, Australia
proposes that this format would also be used by holders of single-year exemptions to reapply for a subsequent
year’s exemption (for example, nominees approved for single-year exemptions for 2005 seeking further
exemptions for 2006).
618
In addition, Australia notes that it may be useful for the following format to be prefaced by cover pages similar
to those detailed in the 2003 critical use handbook, which summarize the critical-use nomination and provide the
contact details of the nominating Party.
From 2005 onwards, Parties’ experience in the submission and assessment of reporting on critical-use
exemptions may reveal improvements that could usefully be made to the reporting parameters outlined in the
present document. Acknowledging this potential, and to ensure continuous improvement of the exemption
reporting process, it is noted that Parties will have the opportunity to review the annual reporting parameters at a
future date to ensure that they continue:
(a) To meet their expectations regarding the provision of transparent and adequate data on exemption
holders’ progress in achieving transition;
(b) To provide a streamlined format that does not compromise the level of data required for scrutiny by the
Parties, but also does not place an unnecessarily onerous burden on nominating Parties.
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
619
Table 1: Report on transition efforts and activities
Transition efforts and A. Description and B. Outcomes to date C. Impact on critical- D. Actions to address E. Any re-changes to
activities implementation status use any delays/obstacles trials/other efforts
nomination/required
quantities
1. Trials of alternatives
2. Technology transfer,
scale-up, regulatory
approval
3. Commercial scale-
up/deployment, market
penetration
4. Any other broader
transition activities
620
B. Reporting requirements
1. Implementation of the Parties’ mandate on continued efforts to find alternatives
Column A requires a description of the implementation of any trials, technology transfer activities and/or other
transition activities that were identified in the earlier nomination, including advice on whether the activity is
complete or still underway.
Column B requires a report on the results of the transition activities (e.g., trials of alternatives – yield results
achieved with the alternative in comparison to those achieved through methyl bromide treatment; deployment –
percentage of users represented in a nomination covered by deployment activities and now able to transition to
alternatives). In the case of trials of alternatives, reporting would include attaching copies of formal scientific
trial reports. Where formal trial reports are not available (for example, where an exemption holder’s transition
efforts focus on grower trials), the exemption holder could include a description of all relevant parameters of the
trials that are available. These could include data, as specified in the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel Handbook on Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide, such as soil and climate types in which the
trials were conducted, plant-back times observed, the rate of methyl bromide andalternatives application
(kg/hectare or g/m2), the proportionate mix of methyl bromide and chloropicrin, etc.
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
Column C requires a summary of the implication of the trial and activity results and outcomes, such as what
impact they would have on the quantity of methyl bromide required for the critical-use nomination. For example,
positive results from technology transfer or deployment activities could lead to the nominating Party identifying
a reduction in the quantity required for the subsequent year of the exemption.
Column D: where any obstacles or delays beyond the control of the exemption holder arose to hinder their
transition activities, this column requires a description of those obstacles or delays and a detailed plan, including
time-specific milestones, for actions to address such problems and maintain the transition momentum.
Column E: where trials, technology transfer or other transition activities have been undertaken but have yielded
negative results (e.g., trials demonstrated technical problems with an alternative, deployment activities revealed
unanticipated economic infeasibility, etc), column E requires a description of the new or alternative transition
activities to be undertaken by the exemption holder to overcome such obstacles to transition.
Row 4: “Any other broader transition activities” provides a nominating Party with the opportunity to report,
where applicable, on any additional activities which it may have undertaken to encourage a transition, but need
not be restricted to the circumstances and activities of the individual nomination. Without prescribing specific
activities that a nominating Party should address, and noting that individual Parties are best placed to identify the
most appropriate approach to achieve a swift transition in their own circumstances, such activities could include
market incentives, financial support to exemption nominees and exemption holders, labelling, product
prohibitions, public awareness and information campaigns, etc.
Notes: For an exemption holder or nominee to qualify for an exemption, a commitment must be demonstrated to
finding technically and economically viable alternatives and achieving a transition to the use of alternatives. In
particular, decision IX/6 requires the following of an exemption nominee:
“It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialize and secure
national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes... Non-Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that
research programmes are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes. Article 5 Parties
must demonstrate that feasible alternatives shall be adopted as soon as they are confirmed as suitable to
the Party's specific conditions…”.
Section 1 provides the means by which exemption holders and nominees can report on their current progress in
implementing that mandate. The nature of the information provided would vary according to the specific actions
that had been outlined in each original nomination, but for ease of review the information should be structured as
presented in table 1 above.
621
2. Registration of an alternative
Where a nomination identified that an alternative was not yet registered at the time of the original nomination’s
submission, but it was anticipated that one would be subsequently registered, the nominating Party should report
on the progress of the alternative through the registration process. This report should include any efforts by the
Party to “fast track” or otherwise assist the registration of the alternative.
Where significant delays or obstacles have been encountered to the anticipated registration of an alternative, the
exemption holder should identify the scope for any new/alternative efforts that could be undertaken to maintain
the momentum of transition efforts, and identify a time-frame for undertaking such efforts.
Where an alternative was de-registered subsequent to submission of the original nomination, the nominating
Party would report the de-registration, including reasons for it. The nominating Party would also report on the
de-registration’s impact (if any) on the exemption holder’s transition plan and on the proposed new or alternative
efforts that will be undertaken by the exemption holder to maintain the momentum of transition efforts.
Notes: It is understood that progress in registration of a product will often be beyond the control of an individual
exemption holder as the registration process must be undertaken by the manufacturer or supplier of the product.
METHYL BROMIDE
The speed with which registration applications are processed also falls outside the exemption holder’s control,
CRITICAL USES
resting with the nominating Party. Consequently, this section requires the nominating Party to report on any
efforts it has taken to assist the registration process, noting that the scope for expediting registration will vary
from Party to Party.
In recognition of the fact that it would be unreasonable to revise exemption holders’ nomination because of
registration delays beyond their control, this section also requires a report on the actions that are being taken to
continue transition despite registration delays.
3. Implementation of recommendations of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee and the
In developing recommendations on exemption nominations submitted in 2003, the Methyl Bromide Technical
Options Committee and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in many cases recommended that
nominees should explore and, more appropriate, implement:
(a) Options for reducing the quantity of methyl bromide required; or
(b) The use of particular alternatives not originally identified by the exemption holder as part of its
transitional plan, but considered key alternatives by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee
and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel.
Where the approval granted by the Meeting of the Parties’ for exemptions included conditions incorporating
those recommendations, the exemption–holder should report on its progress in exploring or implementing them
as part of its annual reporting obligations.
Where a condition required the testing of an alternative or adoption of an emission minimization measure,
reporting should be structured in the same format as table 1 (report on transition efforts and activities).
Where a condition related to an assessment of the economic viability of an alternative or measure to minimize
use or emissions, the reporting should require to address the relevant economic data requirements identified in
section 4 below.
4. Economic feasibility
Where a nomination has been approved on the basis of the economic infeasibility of an alternative, the
exemption holder should report any significant changes to the underlying economics. This could include any
changes to:
(a) The purchase cost per kilogram of methyl bromide and of the alternative;
622
(b) Gross and net revenue with and without methyl bromide, and with the next best alternative;
(c) Percentage change in gross revenues if alternatives are used;
(d) Absolute losses per hectare/cubic metre if alternatives are used;
(e) Losses per kilogram of methyl bromide requested if alternatives are used;
(f) Losses as a percentage of net cash revenue if alternatives are used;
(g) Percentage change in profit margin if alternatives are used.
Notes: Where an exemption has been approved on the basis of the economic infeasibility of an alternative, the
exemption holder must have clearly described the nature of the economic infeasibility in its original nomination.
The economics of methyl bromide and of alternatives can be subject to changes over time, and it is possible that
those changes could have an impact on the exemption holder’s claim that an alternative is not economically
viable and on its continuing eligibility for an exemption.
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
Given that criteria for assessing the economic feasibility of alternatives have not yet been agreed by the Parties,
at the current time the seven data points identified above represent suggested guidance only. As criteria are
developed and approved by the Parties for inclusion in the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel/MBTOC Handbook, the data to be provided in annual reporting would reflect those criteria and any
accompanying new data requirements.
5. Reduction in quantity of methyl bromide required
Exemption holders should indicate whether the number of hectares or cubic metres identified in their earlier
nominations has changed. Where the number has been reduced, the exemption holder should quantify any
resultant change in the quantity of methyl bromide required.
Notes: The Critical Use Nomination Handbook requests pre-planting Parties making nominations to provide
information on the number of hectares or cubic metres to be treated with methyl bromide.
In some cases, it is possible that the number of hectares or cubic metres to be treated could vary over time. As
such variations can also change the quantity of methyl bromide required for the exemption, this section provides
the means to monitor such variations.
Exemption quantity details
Quantity requested in original nomination: __________________
Quantity recommended by Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel: __________________
Quantity approved by Parties: __________________
Quantity required for [year]: __________________
623
Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl

[Source: Annex I of the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties]
A. Working procedures of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee relating to the
evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide
1. The schedule for the MBTOC assessment of critical-use exemptions will be revised as set out in the
following table:
Actions Indicative
completion date
Parties submit their nominations for critical-use exemptions to the Secretariat 24 January
The nominations are forwarded to MBTOC co-chairs for distribution to the subgroups of 7 February
appointed members
Nominations in full are assessed by the subgroups of appointed members. The initial 28 February
findings of the subgroups, and any requests for additional information are forwarded to
METHYL BROMIDE
the MBTOC co-chairs for clearance

CRITICAL USES
MBTOC co-chairs forward the cleared advice on initial findings and requests for 7 March
additional information on to the nominating Party concerned and consult with the Party
on the possible presumption therein
Nominating Party develops and submits its response to the MBTOC co-chairs 28 March
MBTOC meets as usual to assess nominations, including any additional information 11 April
provided by the nominating Party prior to the MBTOC meeting under action 5 and any
additional information provided by nominating Party through pre-arranged
teleconference, or through meetings with national experts, in accordance with paragraph
3.4 of the terms of reference of TEAP, advises the nominating Party of any outstanding
information regarding the information requested under action 3 for those critical-use
nominations where it was unable to assess the nomination, and provides its proposed
recommendations to TEAP
TEAP meets as usual in May, among other things, to assess the MBTOC report on early May
critical-use nominations and submits the finalized report on recommendations and
findings to the Secretariat
The Secretariat posts the finalized report on its web site and circulates it to the Parties mid-May
Nominating Party has the opportunity to consult with MBTOC on a bilateral basis in early July
conjunction with the Open-ended Working Group meetings
The nominating Party submits further clarification for the critical-use nomination in the early August
“unable to assess” category or if requested to do so by the Open-ended Working Group,
and provides additional information should it wish to appeal against a critical-use
nomination recommendation by MBTOC
MBTOC meets to reassess only those critical-use nominations in the “unable to assess” late August
category, those where additional information has been submitted by the nominating Party
and any critical-use nominations for which additional information has been requested by
the Open-ended Working Group
MBTOC final report is made available to Parties through TEAP early October
2. Standard presumptions that underlie MBTOC recommendations of critical-use nominations need to be

transparent and technically and economically justified, and should be clearly stated in its reports, and
submitted to the Parties for approval at the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties, and thereafter on an
annual basis. Reaffirming that the individual circumstances are the primary point of departure for an
assessment of a nomination, MBTOC should not apply standard presumptions where the Party has
demonstrated that the individual circumstances of the nomination indicate otherwise.
3. In the event that a nomination has been recommended for rejection or reduction as assessed under action
6 above, MBTOC will give the nominating Party the opportunity to send detailed corroborating
information taking into account the circumstances of the nomination. On the basis of this additional
624
information (and possible consultations with the nominating Party by pre-arranged teleconference)
MBTOC will reassess this nomination.
4. Although the burden of proof remains with the Party to justify a request for a critical-use exemption,
MBTOC will provide in its report a clear explanation of its operation with respect to the process of
making determinations for its recommendations, and clearly state the approach, assumptions and
reasoning used in the evaluation of the critical-use nominations. When cuts or denials are proposed, the
description should include citations and also indicate where alternatives are technically and economically
feasible in circumstances similar to those in the nomination, as described in decision Ex.1/5, paragraph 8.
5. Communications between the nominating Party and MBTOC will be based on the principles of fairness
and due process, on the basis of corroborating written documentation, and will be properly reflected in the
MBTOC and TEAP reports.
6. The role of the Secretariat should be central in regard to assistance in organizational, administrative and
technical aspects of the process whereby the efficiency, operations and communications could be
enhanced.
METHYL BROMIDE
7. MBTOC is requested to develop and keep up to date an expanded matrix describing the conditions under
CRITICAL USES
which alternatives are technically and economically feasible. The matrix should include detailed
references, such as citations of trial reports demonstrating this feasibility or case studies of commercial
operation. Before application, the Parties should approve the matrix and any subsequent changes.
8. MBTOC, when holding its meeting, can consult the nominating Party through pre-arranged
teleconference or through face-to-face discussions with national experts, in accordance with
paragraph 3.4 of the terms of reference for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in order to
facilitate a transparent exchange of information and understanding between MBTOC and the critical-use
exemption applicant.
9. It is recalled that paragraphs 9 (f) and 9 (g) of decision Ex.I/4 request TEAP to recommend an accounting
framework and to provide a format for a critical-use exemption report.
10. Despite the opportunities given to the nominating Party to supply any additional information required in
support of its nomination, MBTOC should categorize the nomination as “unable to assess” if there is
insufficient information to make an assessment, and clearly explain what information was missing.
B. Membership of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee
11. TEAP and MBTOC are urged to apply strictly the current terms of reference of TEAP approved by the
Eighth Meeting of the Parties in its decision VIII/9, in particular:
(a) To draw up guidelines for nominating experts by the Parties to be published by the Secretariat;
(b) To publish and keep current a matrix showing existing and needed skills for the MBTOC members.
In so doing, MBTOC may like to use all available UNEP publications, the Secretariat web page, the
regional ozone officers’ network meetings and any other means considered appropriate. Parties, and
in particular Parties operating under Article 5, are urged to consider nominating experts to MBTOC
in those areas where missing skills and expertise have been identified by MBTOC;
(c) To ensure that MBTOC has about 20–35 members as set out in the terms of reference of
TEAP, while also ensuring coverage of the required expertise;
(d) In order to meet the overall goal of achieving a representation in the Committee of about 50 per cent
for Parties operating under Article 5, where candidates from Parties operating under Article 5 and
those not so operating have equivalent expertise and experience, the MBTOC co-chairs shall give
preference to the appointment of those experts from Parties operating under Article 5. The MBTOC
co-chairs, supported by the Ozone Secretariat, should aim to achieve a balanced membership within
625
two years, or as soon as possible thereafter. The Parties shall monitor progress in pursuing a
balanced membership by reviewing the advice provided in the work plan on the composition of
MBTOC;
(e) Skills and expertise in the following fields, among others deemed necessary by MBTOC, should be
represented:
(i) Chemical and non-chemical alternatives to methyl bromide;
(ii) Alternative methods of pest control that have replaced or could replace significant uses of
methyl bromide;
(iii) Technology transfer or extension activities related to alternatives;
(iv) Regulatory processes of registration;
(v) Agricultural economics;

METHYL BROMIDE
(vi) Weed control;

CRITICAL USES
(vii) Resistance management;
(viii) Recapture and recycling of methyl bromide.
12. MBTOC should ensure a membership with substantive practical and first-hand experience. With respect
to (i), (ii), (iii) and (vi) above, preference should be given to candidates who have experience in the
implementation of more than one alternative.
13. With a view to supporting a timely review process and ensuring additional expertise that may be required
for a particular critical-use nomination, MBTOC may seek assistance from additional experts who, at the
request of MBTOC, should provide written input and assist in the review of MBTOC documents. These
consulting experts can be invited by the MBTOC co-chairs, on an exceptional basis, to be heard
personally at a meeting of MBTOC. For reasons of transparency and accountability, the role and type of
input of these consulting experts should be clearly set out.
14. Candidates should be willing to undertake an evaluation of a proportion of the nominations before
arriving at the meeting in order to take advantage of all the local resources available (library, internet,
reports); and to undertake any work after the meeting necessary to finalize the report.
15. An annual work plan will enhance the transparency of, and insight in, the operations of MBTOC. Such a
plan should indicate, among other things:
(a) Key events for a given year;
(b) Envisaged meeting dates of MBTOC, including the stage in the nomination and evaluation process
to which the respective meetings relate;
(c) Tasks to be accomplished at each meeting, including appropriate delegation of such tasks;
(d) Timing of interim and final reports;
(e) Clear references to the timelines relating to nominations;
(f) Information related to financial needs, while noting that financial considerations would still be
reviewed solely in the context of the review of the Secretariat’s budget;
(g) Changes in the composition of MBTOC, pursuant to the criteria for selection;
626
(h) Summary report of MBTOC activities over the previous year, including matters that MBTOC did
not manage to complete, the reasons for this and plans to address these unfinished matters;
(i) Matrix with existing and needed skills and expertise; and
(j) Any new or revised standards or presumptions that MBTOC seeks to apply in its future assessment
of critical-use nominations, for approval by the Meeting of the Parties.
16. The annual work plan should be drawn up by MBTOC (supported by the Ozone Secretariat) in
consultation with TEAP, which shall submit it to the Meeting of the Parties each year.
C. Further guidance on the criteria for the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl
bromide
1. On the availability of technically and economically feasible alternatives, and economic

feasibility
17. Pending further consideration by the Meeting of the Parties, MBTOC shall continue to define:
METHYL BROMIDE
CRITICAL USES
(a) “Alternatives” as any practice or treatment that can be used in place of methyl bromide;
(b) “Existing alternatives” as those alternatives in present or past use in some regions; and
(c) “Potential alternatives” as those alternatives in the process of investigation or development.
18. Understanding of the concept of “availability” shall be primarily guided by the alternative’s market
presence in sufficient quantities and accessibility, taking into account, among other things, regulatory
constraints.
19. To the factors already listed in annex I, part B, paragraph 4 of the report of the Extraordinary Meeting of
the Parties, with regard to paragraphs 6 and 9 (c) of decision Ex.I/4, the following are added:
(a) The difference in purchasing costs between methyl bromide and the alternatives per treated areas,
mass, or volume, and related costs such as new equipment, labour costs and losses resulting from
closing the fumigated object for an extended period of time;
(b) Difference in yield per hectare, including its quality, and harvest time, between the alternative and
methyl bromide;
(c) Percentage change in net revenue if alternatives are used.
20. In line with paragraph 4 above, in any case in which a Party makes a nomination which relies on the
economic criteria of decision IX/6, MBTOC should, in its report, explicitly state the central basis for the
Party’s economic argument and explicitly explain how it addressed that factor, and, in cases in which
MBTOC recommends a cut; MBTOC should also provide an explanation of its economic feasibility.
21. As regards significant market disruption, it is recalled that paragraph 1 (a) (i) of decision IX/6 provides
that a use of methyl bromide should qualify as “critical” only if the nominating Party determines that the
specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a
significant market disruption. Parties are invited to include in their nominations, information on their
determination referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (i) of decision IX/6.
2. On the duration of critical-use nomination of methyl bromide
22. It is recalled that the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties adopted decision XVI/3, related to the duration of
critical-use nominations of methyl bromide.
627
3. On aggregation of nominations
23. It is reaffirmed that applications shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. In that context, MBTOC
shall continue its current approach as regards the level of aggregation or disaggregation.
4. On individual circumstances of nominations
24. In the interest of fair and equal treatment, nominations should be assessed in the light of compliance with
the criteria of decision IX/6 and other relevant decisions, irrespective of the size or number of tonnes in
the nomination. MBTOC is invited to propose a streamlined method for assessing small nominations to
the degree that the method is consistent with the principle stated above.
25. If a particular product is not registered or subject to national or local regulatory restrictions, or if it
becomes de-registered, MBTOC should recommend a critical-use exemption, provided there are no other
feasible alternatives according to decision IX/6 for the specific situation. MBTOC should request written
advice from the nominating Party, which may include advice from the manufacturer of an alternative.
26. In cases where alternatives are currently in the registration process, MBTOC should note this fact. It is
METHYL BROMIDE
acknowledged that a Party does not always have the capability to influence the registration of alternatives.
CRITICAL USES
A nominating Party should inform MBTOC when registration occurs and MBTOC should take this kind
of information into account when recommending critical-use exemptions, as is already requested by the
Parties in decision IX/6, paragraph 1 (b) (iii).
5. On the handbook on critical use nominations for methyl bromide
27. The handbook is a general reference for all those involved in the critical-use exemption process, in part
owing to the convenience of using the handbook as a general reference volume for methyl bromide
decisions, as well as the critical-use nomination procedure. Therefore, the handbook should be reframed
to become a comprehensive “one-stop shop” that includes information on methyl bromide decisions,
working procedures and terms of reference of MBTOC, the critical-use nomination process, agreed
standard presumptions and other related topics. The text should be taken as far as possible, however,
directly from decisions of the Meeting of the Parties or other language that has been approved by the
Parties.
28. The onus remains on the nominating Party to provide sufficient information in order for MBTOC to be
able to assess whether critical-use nominations comply fully with decision IX/6. The handbook should
inform Parties which information requirements are needed.
29. TEAP and its MBTOC should be responsible for updating the handbook. TEAP and its MBTOC should
not put any new proposals in the handbook which do not have a basis in a decision of the Meeting of the
Parties. Factual updates of the handbook incorporating the specific language of the decisions of the
Parties do not require prior approval from the Parties. Otherwise, updates require approval from the
Parties.
6. On approach, assumptions and reasoning to be used in the evaluation
30. Decision IX/6 is the basis for the assessment of critical-use exemptions by MBTOC.
31. While the burden of proof remains with the nominating Party to justify the request for a critical-use
exemption, MBTOC, in its report, should indicate whether the nominating Party has provided the
information in order for MBTOC to determine that the Party has met the applicable criteria set out in
decision IX/6 and related decisions.
32. Exemptions must fully comply with decision IX/6 and other relevant decisions, and are intended to be
limited to the levels needed for critical-use exemptions, temporary derogations from the phase-out of
methyl bromide in that they are to apply only until there are technically and economically feasible
alternatives that otherwise meet the criteria in decision IX/6. MBTOC should take a precise and
628
transparent approach to the application of the criteria, having regard, especially, to paragraphs 4 and 20
above.
7. On similar circumstances
33. When MBTOC makes differentiated recommendations on nominations that cover the same use, it should
clearly explain why one country’s nomination is being treated differently than the nominations of other
countries or the nominations of the same country, based on more information and citations of feasible
alternatives relevant to these nominations, thus eliminating unjustified inconsistencies in assessments and
ensuring equal treatment of nominations.
8. On market penetration of alternatives
34. When considering the market penetration of an alternative in a nominating Party, MBTOC should
evaluate the critical-use nominations based on information provided by the Parties and other information,
in accordance with the terms of reference of TEAP, and in the light of likely implementation time in the
circumstances of the nomination, and provide recommendations. In evaluating, MBTOC should request
written advice from the nominating Party, which may include further information from the manufacturer
METHYL BROMIDE
of an alternative.
CRITICAL USES
35. In situations where MBTOC recommends a nomination on grounds that it is necessary to have a period
for adoption of alternatives, the basis for calculating the time period must be explained fully in the TEAP
report and take fully into account the information provided by the nominating Party, the supplier, the
distributor or the manufacturer. Relevant factors for such a calculation include the number of enterprises
that need to transition, e.g., the number of fumigation and pest control companies, estimated training time
assuming full effort, opportunities for importing alternative equipment and expertise if not available
locally, and costs involved.
36. A case-by-case approach by MBTOC for each specific nomination (on the basis of information provided
according to paragraph 35 above) is necessary above a one-size-fits-all approach when considering
penetration of alternatives and transition times.
9. On conflict of interest
37. The members of MBTOC should be required to declare any interest that they may have on the basis of a
declaration, to be agreed by the Parties, and subject to any conditions attached to it.
38. It is recognized that the topic of conflict of interest, including the format of the declaration referred to in
paragraph 37 above, needs further deliberations, taking fully into account the experience gained in this
regard, the issue of confidentiality and the existing code of conduct contained in paragraph 5 of the terms
of reference of TEAP.
629
Reporting accounting framework for critical uses of methyl bromide

[Source: Annex II of the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties]
Party: ____________________
A B C D E F G H I J K L
(C + D) (B - E) (E + G) (H – I – J - K)
Year of Quantity Quantity Quantity acquired for Total Quantity Amount on Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount on hand
critical use exempted acquired by critical use by import & quantity authorized hand at available used for exported destroyed at end of year3
for year of production countr(y)(ies) of acquired for but not start of for use in critical use
critical use1 for critical Manufacture critical use acquired year2 current year
use Amount Country(s)
(All quantities expressed in metric tonnes)
1 Exempted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Note that the critical use for a particular year may be the sum of quantities authorized by decision in more than one
year.
2 Where possible, national Governments should include quantities on hand as of 1 January 2005 and for each year thereafter. National Governments that are not able to
estimate quantities on hand as of 1 January 2005 can track the subsequent inventory of methyl bromide produced for critical uses (column L).
3 Carried forward as “Amount on hand at start of year” for next year.
630
Section 3.5
Non-Compliance procedure
Non-compliance procedure (1998)

[Source: Annex II of the report of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties]
The following procedure has been formulated pursuant to Article 8 of the Montreal Protocol. It shall apply
without prejudice to the operation of the settlement of disputes procedure laid down in Article 11 of the Vienna
Convention.
1. If one or more Parties have reservations regarding another Party’s implementation of its obligations under
the Protocol, those concerns may be addressed in writing to the Secretariat. Such a submission shall be
supported by corroborating information.
2. The Secretariat shall, within two weeks of its receiving a submission, send a copy of that submission to
NON-COMPLIANCE
the Party whose implementation of a particular provision of the Protocol is at issue. Any reply and
information in support thereof are to be submitted to the Secretariat and to the Parties involved within
three months of the date of the dispatch or such longer period as the circumstances of any particular case
may require. If the Secretariat has not received a reply from the Party three months after sending it the
original submission, the Secretariat shall send a reminder to the Party that it has yet to provide its reply.
The Secretariat shall, as soon as the reply and information from the Party are available, but not later than
six months after receiving the submission, transmit the submission, the reply and the information, if any,
provided by the Parties to the Implementation Committee referred to in paragraph 5, which shall consider
the matter as soon as practicable.
3. Where the Secretariat, during the course of preparing its report, becomes aware of possible non-
compliance by any Party with its obligations under the Protocol, it may request the Party concerned to
furnish necessary information about the matter. If there is no response from the Party concerned within
three months or such longer period as the circumstances of the matter may require or the matter is not
resolved through administrative action or through diplomatic contacts, the Secretariat shall include the
matter in its report to the Meeting of the Parties pursuant to Article 12 (c) of the Protocol and inform the
Implementation Committee, which shall consider the matter as soon as practicable.
4. Where a Party concludes that, despite having made its best, bona fide efforts, it is unable to comply fully
with its obligations under the Protocol, it may address to the Secretariat a submission in writing,
explaining, in particular, the specific circumstances that it considers to be the cause of its non-
compliance. The Secretariat shall transmit such submission to the Implementation Committee which shall
consider it as soon as practicable.
5. An Implementation Committee is hereby established. It shall consist of 10 Parties elected by the Meeting
of the Parties for two years, based on equitable geographical distribution. Each Party so elected to the
Committee shall be requested to notify the Secretariat, within two months of its election, of who is to
represent it and shall endeavour to ensure that such representation remains throughout the entire term of
office. Outgoing Parties may be re-elected for one immediate consecutive term. A Party that has
completed a second consecutive two-year term as a Committee member shall be eligible for election
again only after an absence of one year from the Committee. The Committee shall elect its own President
and Vice-President. Each shall serve for one year at a time. The Vice-President shall, in addition, serve as
the rapporteur of the Committee.
6. The Implementation Committee shall, unless it decides otherwise, meet twice a year. The Secretariat shall
arrange for and service its meetings.
7. The functions of the Implementation Committee shall be:
631
Section 3.5 Non-compliance procedure
(a) To receive, consider and report on any submission in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 4;
(b) To receive, consider and report on any information or observations forwarded by the Secretariat in
connection with the preparation of the reports referred to in Article 12 (c) of the Protocol and on any
other information received and forwarded by the Secretariat concerning compliance with the
provisions of the Protocol;
(c) To request, where it considers necessary, through the Secretariat, further information on matters
under its consideration;
(d) To identify the facts and possible causes relating to individual cases of non-compliance referred to
the Committee, as best it can, and make appropriate recommendations to the Meeting of the Parties;
(e) To undertake, upon the invitation of the Party concerned, information-gathering in the territory of
that Party for fulfilling the functions of the Committee;
(f) To maintain, in particular for the purposes of drawing up its recommendations, an exchange of
information with the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund related to the provision of
NON-COMPLIANCE
financial and technical cooperation, including the transfer of technologies to Parties operating under
Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol.
8. The Implementation Committee shall consider the submissions, information and observations referred to
in paragraph 7 with a view to securing an amicable solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the
provisions of the Protocol.
9. The Implementation Committee shall report to the Meeting of the Parties, including any
recommendations it considers appropriate. The report shall be made available to the Parties not later than
six weeks before their meeting. After receiving a report by the Committee the Parties may, taking into
consideration the circumstances of the matter, decide upon and call for steps to bring about full
compliance with the Protocol, including measures to assist the Parties’ compliance with the Protocol, and
to further the Protocol’s objectives.
10. Where a Party that is not a member of the Implementation Committee is identified in a submission under
paragraph 1, or itself makes such a submission, it shall be entitled to participate in the consideration by
the Committee of that submission.
11. No Party, whether or not a member of the Implementation Committee, involved in a matter under
consideration by the Implementation Committee, shall take part in the elaboration and adoption of
recommendations on that matter to be included in the report of the Committee.
12. The Parties involved in a matter referred to in paragraphs 1, 3 or 4 shall inform, through the Secretariat,
the Meeting of the Parties of the results of proceedings taken under Article 11 of the Convention
regarding possible non-compliance, about implementation of those results and about implementation of
any decision of the Parties pursuant to paragraph 9.
13. The Meeting of the Parties may, pending completion of proceedings initiated under Article 11 of the
Convention, issue an interim call and/or recommendations.
14. The Meeting of the Parties may request the Implementation Committee to make recommendations to
assist the Meeting’s consideration of matters of possible non-compliance.
15. The members of the Implementation Committee and any Party involved in its deliberations shall protect
the confidentiality of information they receive in confidence.
16. The report, which shall not contain any information received in confidence, shall be made available to
any person upon request. All information exchanged by or with the Committee that is related to any
recommendation by the Committee to the Meeting of the Parties shall be made available by the
632
Section 3.5 Non-compliance procedure
Secretariat to any Party upon its request; that Party shall ensure the confidentiality of the information it
has received in confidence.
Indicative list of measures that might be taken by a meeting of the Parties

in respect of non-compliance with the Protocol
[Source: Annex V of the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties]
A. Appropriate assistance, including assistance for the collection and reporting of data, technical assistance,
technology transfer and financial assistance, information transfer and training.
B. Issuing cautions.
C. Suspension, in accordance with the applicable rules of international law concerning the suspension of the
operation of a treaty, of specific rights and privileges under the Protocol, whether or not subject to time
limits, including those concerned with industrial rationalization, production, consumption, trade, transfer
of technology, financial mechanism and institutional arrangements.
NON-COMPLIANCE
633
Section 3.6
The Multilateral Fund
Terms of reference for the Multilateral Fund

[Source: Annex IX of the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties]
A. Establishment
1. A Multilateral Fund is established.
B. Roles of the implementing agencies
2. Under the overall guidance and supervision of the Executive Committee in the discharge of its policy-
making functions:
MULTILATERAL
(a) Implementing agencies shall be requested by the Executive Committee, in the context of country
programmes developed to facilitate compliance with the Protocol, to cooperate with and assist the
FUND
Parties within their respective areas of expertise; and
(b) Implementing agencies shall be invited by the Executive Committee to develop an inter-agency
agreement and specific agreements with the Executive Committee acting on behalf of the Parties.
3. Implementing agencies shall apply only those considerations relevant to effective and economically
efficient programmes and projects which are consistent with any criteria adopted by the Parties.
4. Specifically:
(a) The United Nations Environment Programme shall be invited by the Executive Committee to
cooperate and assist in political promotion of the objectives of the Protocol, as well as in research,
data gathering and the clearing-house functions;
(b) The United Nations Development Programme and such other agencies which, within their areas of
expertise, may be able to assist shall be invited by the Executive Committee to cooperate and assist
in feasibility and pre-investment studies and in other technical assistance measures;
(c) The World Bank shall be invited by the Executive Committee to cooperate and assist in
administering and managing the programme to finance the agreed incremental costs;
(d) Other agencies, in particular regional development banks, shall also be invited by the Executive
Committee to cooperate with and assist it in carrying out its functions.
5. The Executive Committee shall draw up reporting criteria and shall invite the implementing agencies to
report regularly to it in accordance with those criteria.
6. The Executive Committee shall invite the implementing agencies, in fulfilling their responsibilities in
respect of the Multilateral Fund, to consult each other regularly. It shall also invite the heads of the
agencies or their representatives to meet at least once a year to report on their activities and consult on
cooperative arrangements.
7. The implementing agencies shall be entitled to receive support costs for the activities they undertake,
having reached specific agreements with the Executive Committee.
634
Section 3.6 The Multilateral Fund
C. Budget and contributions
8. The Multilateral Fund shall be financed in accordance with Paragraph 6 of Article 10 of the amended
Protocol. In addition, contributions may be made by countries not Party to the Protocol, and by other
governmental, intergovernmental, non-governmental and other sources.
9. The contributions referred to in paragraph 6 of Article 10 of the amended Protocol are to be based on the
scale of contributions decided by the annual Meeting of the Parties. Bilateral and, in particular cases,
regional cooperation by a country not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 may, according to criteria
adopted by the Parties, be considered as a contribution to the Multilateral Fund up to a total of twenty per
cent of the total contribution by that Party as decided by the annual Meetings of the Parties.
10. All contributions other than the value of bilateral and agreed regional cooperation referred to in paragraph
9 above shall be in convertible currency or, in certain circumstances, in kind and/or in national currency.
11. Contributions from States that become Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 after the
beginning of the financial period of the mechanism shall be calculated on a pro rata basis for the balance
of the financial period.
MULTILATERAL
12. Contributions not immediately required for the purposes of the Multilateral Fund shall be invested under
the authority of the Executive Committee and any interest so earned shall be credited to the Multilateral
FUND
Fund.
13. Budget estimates, setting out the income and expenditure of the Multilateral Fund prepared in United
States dollars, shall be drawn up by the Executive Committee and submitted to the regular meetings of
the Parties to the Protocol.
14. The proposed budget estimates shall be dispatched by the Fund Secretariat to all Parties to the Protocol at
least sixty days before the date fixed for the opening of the regular meeting of the Parties to the Protocol
at which they are to be considered.
15. Resources remaining in the Interim Multilateral Fund shall be transferred to the Multilateral Fund
established under the financial mechanism.
D. Administration
16. The World Bank shall be invited by the Executive Committee to cooperate with and assist it in
administering and managing the programme to finance the agreed incremental costs of Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5. Should the World Bank accept this invitation, in the context of an
agreement with the Executive Committee, the President of the World Bank shall be the Administrator of
this programme, which shall operate under the authority of the Executive Committee.
17. The Executive Committee shall encourage the involvement of other agencies, in particular the regional
development banks, in carrying out its functions effectively in relation to the programme to finance the
agreed incremental costs.
18. The Fund Secretariat operating under the Chief Officer, co-located with the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) at Montreal, Canada, shall assist the Executive Committee in the discharge of its
functions. The Multilateral Fund shall cover Secretariat costs, based on regular budgets to be submitted
for decision by the Executive Committee.
19. In the event that the Chief Officer of the Fund Secretariat anticipates that there may be a shortfall in
resources over the financial period as whole, he shall have discretion to adjust the budget approved by the
Parties so that expenditures are at all times fully covered by contributions received.
20. No commitments shall be made in advance of the receipt of contributions, but income not spent in a
budget year and unimplemented activities may be carried forward from one year to the next within the
financial period.
635
21. At the end of each calendar year, the Chief Officer of the Fund Secretariat shall submit to the Parties
accounts for the year. The Chief Officer shall also, as soon as practicable, submit the audited accounts for
each period so as to coincide with the accounting procedures of the implementing agencies.
22. The Fund Secretariat and the implementing agencies shall cooperate with the Parties to provide
information on funding available for relevant projects, to secure the necessary contacts and to coordinate,
when requested by the interested Party, projects financed from other sources with activities financed
under the Protocol.
23. The financing of activities or other costs, including resources channelled to third party beneficiaries, shall
require the concurrence of the recipient Governments concerned. Recipient Governments shall, where
appropriate, be associated with the planning of projects and programmes.
24. Nothing shall preclude a beneficiary Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 from applying for its
requirements for agreed incremental costs solely from the resources available to the Multilateral Fund.
Indicative list of categories of incremental costs

[Source: Annex VIII of the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties]
MULTILATERAL
The evaluation of requests for financing incremental costs of a given project shall take into account the
following general principles:
FUND
(a) The most cost-effective and efficient option should be chosen, taking into account the national industrial
strategy of the recipient Party. It should be considered carefully to what extent the infrastructure at
present used for production of the controlled substances could be put to alternative uses, thus resulting in
decreased capital abandonment, and how to avoid deindustrialization and loss of export revenues;
(b) Consideration of project proposals for funding should involve the careful scrutiny of cost items listed in
an effort to ensure that there is no double-counting;
(c) Savings or benefits that will be gained at both the strategic and project levels during the transition process
should be taken into account on a case-by-case basis, according to criteria decided by the Parties and as
elaborated in the guidelines of the Executive Committee;
(d) The funding of incremental costs is intended as an incentive for early adoption of ozone protecting
technologies. In this respect the Executive Committee shall agree which time scales for payment of
incremental costs are appropriate in each sector.
Incremental costs that once agreed are to be met by the financial mechanism include those listed below. If
incremental costs other than those mentioned below are identified and quantified, a decision as to whether they
are to be met by the financial mechanism shall be taken by the Executive Committee consistent with any criteria
decided by the Parties and elaborated in the guidelines of the Executive Committee. The incremental recurring
costs apply only for a transition period to be defined. The following list is indicated:
(a) Supply of substitutes
(i) Cost of conversion of existing production facilities:
cost of patents and designs and incremental cost of royalties;
capital cost of conversion;
cost of retraining of personnel, as well as the cost of research to adapt technology to local
circumstances;
(ii) Costs arising from premature retirement or enforced idleness, taking into account any guidance of
the Executive Committee on appropriate cut-off dates:
636
of productive capacity previously used to produce substances controlled by existing and/or amended
or adjusted Protocol provisions; and
where such capacity is not replaced by converted or new capacity to produce alternatives;
(iii) Cost of establishing new production facilities for substitutes of capacity equivalent to capacity lost
when plants are converted or scrapped, including:
cost of patents and designs and incremental cost of royalties;
capital cost;
cost of training, as well as the cost of research to adapt technology to local circumstances;
(iv) Net operational cost, including the cost of raw materials;
(v) Cost of import of substitutes;
(b) Use in manufacturing as an intermediate good
MULTILATERAL
(i) Cost of conversion of existing equipment and product manufacturing facilities;
FUND
(ii) Cost of patents and designs and incremental cost of royalties;
(iii) Capital cost;
(iv) Cost of retraining;
(v) Cost of research and development;
(vi) Operational cost, including the cost of raw materials except where otherwise provided for;
(c) End use
(i) Cost of premature modification or replacement of user equipment;
(ii) Cost of collection, management, recycling, and, if cost effective, destruction of ozone-depleting
substances;
(iii) Cost of providing technical assistance to reduce consumption and unintended emission of ozone-
depleting substances.
Terms of reference of the Executive Committee (1997)

[Source: Annex V of the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties, and as further modified by the Sixteenth
Meeting of the Parties in Decision XVI/38 and Ninteenth Meeting of the Parties in Decision XIX/11]
1. The Executive Committee of the Parties is established to develop and monitor the implementation of
resources, for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the Multilateral Fund under the Financial
Mechanism.
2. The Executive Committee shall consist of seven Parties from the group of Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and seven Parties from the group of Parties not so operating.
Each group shall select its Executive Committee members. Seven seats allocated to the group of Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 shall be allocated as follows: two seats to Parties of the African
region, two seats to Parties of the region of Asia and the Pacific, two seats to Parties of the region of Latin
America and the Caribbean, and one rotating seat among the regions referred, including the region of
637
Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The members of the Executive Committee shall be endorsed by the
2 bis. The members of the Executive Committee whose selection was endorsed by the Eighth Meeting of the
Parties shall remain in office until 31 December 1997. Thereafter, the term of office of the members of
the Committee shall be the calendar year commencing on 1 January of the calendar year after the date of
their endorsement by the Meeting of the Parties.
3. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be selected from the fourteen Executive Committee members.
The office of Chairman is subject to rotation, on an annual basis, between the Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 and the Parties not so operating. The group of Parties entitled to the
chairmanship shall select the Chairman from among their members of the Executive Committee. The
Vice-Chairman shall be selected by the other group from within their number.
4. Decisions by the Executive Committee shall be taken by consensus whenever possible. If all efforts at
consensus have been exhausted and no agreement reached, decisions shall be taken by a two-thirds
majority of the Parties present and voting, representing a majority of the Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5 and a majority of the Parties not so operating present and voting.
MULTILATERAL
5. The meetings of the Executive Committee shall be conducted in those official languages of the United
Nations required by members of the Executive Committee. Nevertheless, the Executive Committee may
FUND
agree to conduct its business in one of the United Nations official languages.
6. Costs of Executive Committee meetings, including travel and subsistence of Committee participants from
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, shall be disbursed from the Multilateral Fund as
necessary.
7. The Executive Committee shall ensure that the expertise required to perform its functions is available to
it.
8. The Executive Committee shall have the flexibility to hold two or three meetings annually, if it so
decides, and shall report at each Meeting of the Parties on any decision taken there. The Executive
Committee should consider meeting, when appropriate, in conjunction with other Montreal Protocol
meetings.
9. The Executive Committee shall adopt other rules of procedure on a provisional basis and in accordance
with paragraphs 1 to 8 of the present terms of reference. Such provisional rules of procedure shall be
submitted to the next annual meeting of the Parties for endorsement. This procedure shall also be
followed when such rules of procedure are amended.
10. The functions of the Executive Committee shall include:
(a) To develop and monitor the implementation of specific operational policies, guidelines and
administrative arrangements, including the disbursement of resources;
(b) To develop the plan and budget for the Multilateral Fund, including allocation of Multilateral Fund
resources among the agencies identified in paragraph 5 of Article 10 of the Amended Protocol;
(c) To supervise and guide the administration of the Multilateral Fund;
(d) To develop the criteria for project eligibility and guidelines for the implementation of activities
supported by the Multilateral Fund;
(e) To review regularly the performance reports on the implementation of activities supported by the
Multilateral Fund;
(f) To monitor and evaluate expenditure incurred under the Multilateral Fund;
638
(g) To consider and, where appropriate, approve country programmes for compliance with the Protocol
and, in the context of those country programmes, assess and where applicable approve all project
proposals or groups of project proposals where the agreed incremental costs exceed $500,000;
(h) To review any disagreement by a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 with any decision
taken with regard to a request for financing by that Party of a project or projects where the agreed
incremental costs are less than $500,000;
(i) To assess annually whether the contributions through bilateral cooperation, including particular
regional cases, comply with the criteria set out by the Parties for consideration as part of the
contributions to the Multilateral Fund;
(j) To report annually to the meeting of the Parties on the activities exercised under the functions
outlined above, and to make recommendations as appropriate;
(k) To nominate, for appointment by the Executive Director of UNEP, the Chief Officer of the Fund
Secretariat, who shall work under the Executive Committee and report to it; and
(l) To perform such other functions as may be assigned to it by the Meeting of the Parties.
MULTILATERAL
Rules of procedure for meetings of the Executive Committee of the
FUND
Multilateral Fund
[Source: Annex VI of the report of the Third Meeting of the Parties]
Applicability
Unless otherwise provided for by the Montreal Protocol or by the decision of the Parties, or excluded by the
Rules of Procedure hereunder, the Rules of Procedures for meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer shall apply mutatis mutandis to the proceedings of any meeting of the
Executive Committee.
Rule 1
These Rules of procedure shall apply to any meeting of the Executive Committee for the Interim Multilateral
Fund under the Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer convened in accordance with Article 11 of
the Protocol.
Definitions Rule 2
For the purposes of these rules:
1. “Executive Committee” means the Executive Committee for the Interim Multilateral Fund as established
by decision II/8 at the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
2. “Committee members” means Parties selected as members of the Executive Committee for the Interim
Multilateral Fund.
3. “Meeting” means any meeting of the Executive Committee for the Interim Multilateral Fund.
4. “Chairman” means the Committee member selected Chairman of the Executive Committee.
5. “Secretariat” means the Multilateral Fund Secretariat.
6. “Fund” means the Interim Multilateral Fund.
639
Place of meetings Rule 3
The meetings of the Executive Committee shall take place at the seat of the Fund Secretariat, unless other
appropriate arrangements are made by the Fund Secretariat in consultation with the Executive Committee.
Dates of meetings Rule 4
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall be held at least twice every year.
2. At each meeting, the Executive Committee shall fix the opening date and duration of the next meeting.
Rule 5
The Secretariat shall notify all Committee members of the dates and venue of meetings at least six weeks before
the meeting.
Observers Rule 6
1. The Secretariat shall notify the President of the Bureau and the implementing agencies – inter alia UNEP,
MULTILATERAL
UNDP and the World Bank – of any meeting of the Executive Committee so that they may participate as
observers.
FUND
2. Such observers may, upon invitation of the Chairman, participate without the right to vote in the
proceedings of any meeting.
Rule 7
1. The Secretariat shall notify any body or agency, whether national or international, governmental or non-
governmental, qualified in the field related to the work of the Executive Committee, that has informed the
Secretariat of its wishes to be represented, of any meeting so that it may be represented by an observer
subject to the condition that their admission to the meeting is not objected to by at least one third of the
Parties present at the meeting. However, the Executive Committee may determine that any portion of its
meetings involving sensitive matters may be closed to observers. Non-governmental observers should
include observers from developing and developed countries and their total number should be limited as
far as possible.
2. Such observers may, upon invitation of the Chairman and if there is no objection from the Committee
members present, participate without the right to vote in the proceedings of any meeting in matters of
direct concern to the body or agency which they represent.
Agenda Rule 8
In agreement with the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, the Secretariat shall prepare the provisional agenda for
each meeting.
Rule 9
The Secretariat shall report to the meeting on the administrative and financial implications of all substantive
agenda items submitted to the meeting, before they are considered by it. Unless the meeting decides otherwise,
no such item shall be considered until at least twenty-four hours after the meeting has received the Secretariat’s
report on the administrative and financial implications.
Rule 10
Any item of the agenda of any meeting, consideration of which has not been completed at the meeting, shall be
included automatically in the agenda of the next meeting, unless otherwise decided by the Executive Committee.
640
Representation and credentials Rule 11
The Executive Committee shall consist of seven Parties from the group of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Protocol and seven Parties from the group of Parties not so operating. Each group shall select its
Executive Committee members. The members of the Executive Committee shall be formally endorsed by the
Rule 12
Each Committee member shall be represented by an accredited representative who may be accompanied by such
alternate representatives and advisers as may be required.
Officers Rule 13
If the Chairman is temporarily unable to fulfil the obligation of the office, the Vice-Chairman shall in the interim
assume all the obligations and authorities of the Chairman.
Rule 14
MULTILATERAL
If the Chairman or Vice-Chairman is unable to complete the term of office the Committee members representing
the group which selected that officer shall select a replacement to complete the term of office.
FUND
Rule 15
1. The Secretariat shall:
(a) Make the necessary arrangements for the meetings of the Executive Committee, including the issue
of invitations and preparation of documents and reports of the meeting;
(b) Arrange for the custody and preservation of the documents of the meeting in the archives of the
international organization designated as secretariat of the Convention; and
(c) Generally perform all other functions that the Executive Committee may require.
Rule 16
The Chief Officer of the Secretariat shall be the Secretary of any meeting of the Executive Committee.
Voting Rule 17
Decisions of the Executive Committee shall be taken by consensus whenever possible. If all efforts at consensus
have been exhausted and no agreement reached, decisions shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of the Parties
present and voting, representing a majority of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and a majority
of the Parties not so operating present and voting.
Languages Rule 18
The meeting of the Executive Committee shall be conducted in those official languages of the United Nations
required by members of the Executive Committee. Nevertheless the Executive Committee may agree to conduct
its business in one of the United Nations official languages.
Amendments to rules of procedure Rule 19
These rules of procedure may be amended according to Rule 17 above and formally endorsed by the Meeting of
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
641
Overriding authority of the Protocol Rule 20
In the event of any conflict between any provision of these rules and any provision of the Protocol, the Protocol
shall prevail.
MULTILATERAL
FUND
642
Section 3.7
Finance
Terms of reference for the administration of the Trust Fund for the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer*
[Source: Annex II of the report of the First Meeting of the Parties, as amended by Decision XIV/41]
1. A Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (hereinafter referred
to as the Trust Fund) shall be established to provide financial support to the Protocol.
2. Pursuant to the Financial Regulations and Rules of the United Nations, the Executive Director of the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with the approval of the Governing Council of UNEP
and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, shall establish the Trust Fund for the administration of
the Protocol.
3. The Trust Fund shall be established for an initial period of three and one half years beginning 1 October
1989 and ending 31 March 1993. The appropriations of the Trust Fund for this period shall be financed
FINANCE
from:
(a) Voluntary contributions made by the Parties to the Protocol including contributions from any new
Parties;
(b) Voluntary contributions from States not party to the Protocol, other governmental,
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and other sources.
4. The voluntary contributions referred to in Article 3 (a) above, are to be based on the United Nations scale
of contributions for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations (adjusted to provide that no
one contribution shall exceed 22 per cent of the total and no contributions shall be required when the
United Nations scale provides for a contribution of less than 0.1 per cent).
5. The budget estimates prepared in United States dollars, covering the income and expenditure for the
Protocol, shall be submitted to the ordinary meetings of the Parties to the Protocol.
6. The proposed budget shall be dispatched by the Secretariat to all Parties to the Protocol at least ninety
days before the date fixed for the opening of the ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.
7. The Parties shall make every effort to reach agreement on the budget by consensus. If all efforts at
consensus have been exhausted and no agreement reached, the budget shall, as a last resort, be adopted by
two-thirds majority vote of the Parties present and voting representing at least 50 per cent of the total
consumption of the controlled substances of the Parties.
8. In the event that the Executive Director of UNEP anticipates that there might be a shortfall in resources
over the financial period as a whole, he shall have discretion to adjust the budget so that expenditures are
at all times fully covered by contributions received.
9. Commitments against the resources of the Trust Fund may be made only if they are covered by the
necessary income. No commitments shall be made in advance of the receipt of contributions.
10. The Executive Director of UNEP may make transfers from one budget line to another within the budget
in accordance with the Financial Regulations and Rules of the United Nations. At the end of a calendar
year of a financial period, the Executive Director may transfer any uncommitted balance of
appropriations to the following calendar year.
643
Section 3.7 Finance
11. All contributions are due to be paid in the year immediately preceding the year to which the contributions
relate.
12. All contributions are to be paid in United States dollars into the following account: Account No. 485-
000326, UNEP Trust Funds and Counterpart Contributions, JP Morgan Chase, International Agencies
Banking, 1166 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10036-2708, United States.
13. Contributions from States that become Parties after the beginning of the financial period shall be made on
a pro rata basis for the balance of the financial period.
14. Contributions not immediately required for the purposes of the Fund shall be invested at the discretion of
the United Nations and any interest so earned shall be credited to the Fund.
15. The Executive Director shall deduct from the income of the Trust Fund an administrative support charge
equal to 13 per cent of other expenditures recorded during any accounting period in order to meet the cost
of administrative activities financed from the Trust Fund and providing services relating to personnel,
accounting, audit, etc.
16. At the end of the first calendar year of a financial period, the Executive Director shall submit to the
Parties the accounts for the year. He shall also submit, as soon as practicable, the audited accounts for the
FINANCE
financial period.
17. The General Procedures governing the Operations of the Fund of UNEP and the Financial Regulations
and Rules of the United Nations shall govern the financial operations of the Protocol.
18. In the event that the Parties wish the Trust Fund to be extended beyond 31 March 1993, the Executive
Director of UNEP shall be so requested by the Parties at least six months earlier. Such extension of the
Trust Fund shall be subject to the approval of the UNEP Governing Council and the United Nations
Secretary-General.
* The Vienna Convention Trust Fund has the same terms of reference.
UN scale of assessments
[Source: Annex II of the report of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties]
[Will become applicable to contributions to the Trust Funds for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal
Protocol, and the Trust Fund for the Multilateral Fund according to adopted decisions.
The contributions to the Trust Funds of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol are based on the UN
scales, adjusted to provide that no one contribution exceeds 22 per cent of the total and no contribution shall be
required when the UN Scale provides a contribution of less than 0.1 per cent. The contributions to the
Multilateral Fund are in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 10 of the amended Protocol.]
Adjusted United
Adjusted United
United Nations scale Nations scale with 22
Nations scale to
Party of assessments for per cent maximum
exclude non-
2013–2015 assessment rate
contributors
considered
Afghanistan 0.005 0.000 0.000
Albania 0.010 0.000 0.000
Algeria 0.137 0.137 0.137
Andorra 0.008 0.000 0.000
Angola 0.010 0.000 0.000
Antigua and Barbuda 0.002 0.000 0.000
Argentina 0.432 0.432 0.431
Armenia 0.007 0.000 0.000
644
Section 3.7 Finance
Adjusted United
Adjusted United
Nations scale to
exclude non-
contributors
considered
Australia 2.074 2.074 2.067
Austria 0.798 0.798 0.795
Azerbaijan 0.040 0.000 0.000
Bahamas 0.017 0.000 0.000
Bahrain 0.039 0.000 0.000
Bangladesh 0.010 0.000 0.000
Barbados 0.008 0.000 0.000
Belarus 0.056 0.000 0.000
Belgium 0.998 0.998 0.995
Belize 0.001 0.000 0.000
Benin 0.003 0.000 0.000
Bhutan 0.001 0.000 0.000
FINANCE
Bolivia (Plurinational State
0.009 0.000 0.000
of)
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.017 0.000 0.000
Botswana 0.017 0.000 0.000
Brazil 2.934 2.934 2.924
Brunei Darussalam 0.026 0.000 0.000
Bulgaria 0.047 0.000 0.000
Burkina Faso 0.003 0.000 0.000
Burundi 0.001 0.000 0.000
Cabo Verde 0.001 0.000 0.000
Cambodia 0.004 0.000 0.000
Cameroon 0.012 0.000 0.000
Canada 2.984 2.984 2.974
Central African Republic 0.001 0.000 0.000
Chad 0.002 0.000 0.000
Chile 0.334 0.334 0.333
China 5.148 5.148 5.131
Colombia 0.259 0.259 0.258
Comoros 0.001 0.000 0.000
Congo 0.005 0.000 0.000
Cook Islands - 0.000 0.000
Costa Rica 0.038 0.000 0.000
Côte d' Ivoire 0.011 0.000 0.000
Croatia 0.126 0.126 0.126
Cuba 0.069 0.000 0.000
Cyprus 0.047 0.000 0.000
Czech Republic 0.386 0.386 0.385
Democratic People's
0.006 0.000 0.000
Republic of Korea
Democratic Republic of the
0.003 0.000 0.000
Congo
Denmark 0.675 0.675 0.673
645
Section 3.7 Finance
Adjusted United
Adjusted United
Nations scale to
exclude non-
contributors
considered
Djibouti 0.001 0.000 0.000
Dominica 0.001 0.000 0.000
Dominican Republic 0.045 0.000 0.000
Ecuador 0.044 0.000 0.000
Egypt 0.134 0.134 0.134
El Salvador 0.016 0.000 0.000
Equatorial Guinea 0.010 0.000 0.000
Eritrea 0.001 0.000 0.000
Estonia 0.040 0.000 0.000
Ethiopia 0.010 0.000 0.000
European Union 2.500 2.500 2.492
Fiji 0.003 0.000 0.000
FINANCE
Finland 0.519 0.519 0.517

France 5.593 5.593 5.575
Gabon 0.020 0.000 0.000
Gambia 0.001 0.000 0.000
Georgia 0.007 0.000 0.000
Germany 7.141 7.141 7.118
Ghana 0.014 0.000 0.000
Greece 0.638 0.638 0.636
Grenada 0.001 0.000 0.000
Guatemala 0.027 0.000 0.000
Guinea 0.001 0.000 0.000
Guinea-Bissau 0.001 0.000 0.000
Guyana 0.001 0.000 0.000
Haiti 0.003 0.000 0.000
Holy See 0.001 0.000 0.000
Honduras 0.008 0.000 0.000
Hungary 0.266 0.266 0.265
Iceland 0.027 0.000 0.000
India 0.666 0.666 0.664
Indonesia 0.346 0.346 0.345
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.356 0.356 0.355
Iraq 0.068 0.000 0.000
Ireland 0.418 0.418 0.417
Israel 0.396 0.396 0.395
Italy 4.448 4.448 4.433
Jamaica 0.011 0.000 0.000
Japan 10.833 10.833 10.797
Jordan 0.022 0.000 0.000
Kazakhstan 0.121 0.121 0.121
Kenya 0.013 0.000 0.000
646
Section 3.7 Finance
Adjusted United
Adjusted United
Nations scale to
exclude non-
contributors
considered
Kiribati 0.001 0.000 0.000
Kuwait 0.273 0.273 0.272
Kyrgyzstan 0.002 0.000 0.000
Lao People's Democratic
0.002 0.000 0.000
Republic
Latvia 0.047 0.000 0.000
Lebanon 0.042 0.000 0.000
Lesotho 0.001 0.000 0.000
Liberia 0.001 0.000 0.000
Libya 0.142 0.142 0.142
Liechtenstein 0.009 0.000 0.000
Lithuania 0.073 0.000 0.000
Luxembourg 0.081 0.000 0.000
FINANCE
Madagascar 0.003 0.000 0.000
Malawi 0.002 0.000 0.000
Malaysia 0.281 0.281 0.280
Maldives 0.001 0.000 0.000
Mali 0.004 0.000 0.000
Malta 0.016 0.000 0.000
Marshall Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000
Mauritania 0.002 0.000 0.000
Mauritius 0.013 0.000 0.000
Mexico 1.842 1.842 1.836
Micronesia (Federated
0.001 0.000 0.000
States of)
Monaco 0.012 0.000 0.000
Mongolia 0.003 0.000 0.000
Montenegro 0.005 0.000 0.000
Morocco 0.062 0.000 0.000
Mozambique 0.003 0.000 0.000
Myanmar 0.010 0.000 0.000
Namibia 0.010 0.000 0.000
Nauru 0.001 0.000 0.000
Nepal 0.006 0.000 0.000
Netherlands 1.654 1.654 1.649
New Zealand 0.253 0.253 0.252
Nicaragua 0.003 0.000 0.000
Niger 0.002 0.000 0.000
Nigeria 0.090 0.000 0.000
Niue - 0.000 0.000
Norway 0.851 0.851 0.848
Oman 0.102 0.102 0.102
Pakistan 0.085 0.000 0.000
Palau 0.001 0.000 0.000
647
Section 3.7 Finance
Adjusted United
Adjusted United
Nations scale to
exclude non-
contributors
considered
Panama 0.026 0.000 0.000
Papua New Guinea 0.004 0.000 0.000
Paraguay 0.010 0.000 0.000
Peru 0.117 0.117 0.117
Philippines 0.154 0.154 0.153
Poland 0.921 0.921 0.918
Portugal 0.474 0.474 0.472
Qatar 0.209 0.209 0.208
Republic of Korea 1.994 1.994 1.987
Republic of Moldova 0.003 0.000 0.000
Romania 0.226 0.226 0.225
Russian Federation 2.438 2.438 2.430
FINANCE
Rwanda 0.002 0.000 0.000

Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.001 0.000 0.000
Saint Lucia 0.001 0.000 0.000
Saint Vincent and the
0.001 0.000 0.000
Grenadines
Samoa 0.001 0.000 0.000
San Marino 0.003 0.000 0.000
Sao Tome and Principe 0.001 0.000 0.000
Saudi Arabia 0.864 0.864 0.861
Senegal 0.006 0.000 0.000
Serbia 0.040 0.000 0.000
Seychelles 0.001 0.000 0.000
Sierra Leone 0.001 0.000 0.000
Singapore 0.384 0.384 0.383
Slovakia 0.171 0.171 0.170
Slovenia 0.100 0.000 0.000
Solomon Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000
Somalia 0.001 0.000 0.000
South Africa 0.372 0.372 0.371
South Sudan 0.004 0.000 0.000
Spain 2.973 2.973 2.963
Sri Lanka 0.025 0.000 0.000
Sudan 0.010 0.000 0.000
Suriname 0.004 0.000 0.000
Swaziland 0.003 0.000 0.000
Sweden 0.960 0.960 0.957
Switzerland 1.047 1.047 1.044
Syrian Arab Republic 0.036 0.000 0.000
Tajikistan 0.003 0.000 0.000
Thailand 0.239 0.239 0.238
The former Yugoslav
0.008 0.000 0.000
Republic of Macedonia
648
Section 3.7 Finance
Adjusted United
Adjusted United
Nations scale to
exclude non-
contributors
considered
Timor-Leste 0.002 0.000 0.000
Togo 0.001 0.000 0.000
Tonga 0.001 0.000 0.000
Trinidad and Tobago 0.044 0.000 0.000
Tunisia 0.036 0.000 0.000
Turkey 1.328 1.328 1.324
Turkmenistan 0.019 0.000 0.000
Tuvalu 0.001 0.000 0.000
Uganda 0.006 0.000 0.000
Ukraine 0.099 0.000 0.000
United Arab Emirates 0.595 0.595 0.593
United Kingdom of Great
5.179 5.179 5.162
Britain and Northern Ireland
FINANCE
United Republic of
0.009 0.000 0.000
Tanzania
United States of America 22.000 22.000 21.928
Uruguay 0.052 0.000 0.000
Uzbekistan 0.015 0.000 0.000
Vanuatu 0.001 0.000 0.000
Venezuela (Bolivarian
0.627 0.627 0.625
Republic of)
Viet Nam 0.042 0.000 0.000
Yemen 0.010 0.000 0.000
Zambia 0.006 0.000 0.000
Zimbabwe 0.002 0.000 0.000
Total 102.501 100.330 100.000
649
Section 3.8
Declarations
Helsinki Declaration on the protection of the ozone layer (1989)
[Source: Appendix I of the report of the First Meeting of the Parties]
The Governments and the European Communities represented at the First Meetings of the Parties to the Vienna
Convention and the Montreal Protocol
Aware of the wide agreement among scientists that depletion of the ozone layer will threaten present and future
generations unless more stringent control measures are adopted
Mindful that some ozone depleting substances are powerful greenhouse gases leading to global warming
Aware also of the extensive and rapid technological development of environmentally acceptable substitutes for
the substances that deplete the ozone layer and the urgent need to facilitate the transfer of technologies of such
DECLARATIONS
substitutes especially to developing countries
Encourage all states that have not done so to join the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
and its Montreal Protocol
Agree to phase out the production and the consumption of CFCs controlled by the Montreal Protocol as soon as
possible but not later than the year 2000 and for that purpose to tighten the timetable agreed upon in the
Montreal Protocol taking due account of the special situation of developing countries
Agree to both phase out halons and control and reduce other ozone-depleting substances which contribute
significantly to ozone depletion as soon as feasible
Agree to commit themselves, in proportion to their means and resources, to accelerate the development of
environmentally acceptable substituting chemicals, products and technologies
Agree to facilitate the access of developing countries to relevant scientific information, research results and
training and to seek to develop appropriate funding mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of technology and
replacement of equipment at minimum cost to developing countries.
Helsinki, 2 May 1989
Declaration on chlorofluorocarbons (1990)

[Source: paragraph 49 of the report of the Second Meeting of the Parties]
by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Liechtenstein,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland
The Heads of Delegations of the above governments represented at the Second Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol,
Concerned of the recent scientific findings on severe depletion of ozone layer of both Southern and Northern
Hemispheres,
Mindful that all CFCs are also powerful greenhouse gases leading to global warming,
Convinced of the availability of more environmentally suitable alternative substances or technologies, and
Convinced of the need to further tighten control measures of CFCs beyond the Protocol adjustments agreed by
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,
650
Section 3.8 Declarations
Declare
Their firm determination to take all appropriate measures to phase-out the production and consumption of all
fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons controlled by the Montreal Protocol, as adjusted and amended, as soon as
possible but not later than 1997.
London, 27–29 June 1990
Resolution on ozone-depleting substances (1990)

[Source: Annex VII of the report of the Second Meeting of the Parties]
The Governments and the European Communities represented at the Second Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol
Resolve:
I. Other halons not listed in Annex A, Group II, of the Montreal Protocol (“Other halons”)
1. To refrain from authorizing or to prohibit production and consumption of fully halogenated compounds
DECLARATIONS
containing one, two or three carbon atoms and at least one atom each of bromine and fluorine, and not
listed in Group II of Annex A of the Montreal Protocol (hereafter called “other halons”), which are of
such a chemical nature or such a quantity that they would pose a threat to the ozone layer;
2. To refrain from using other halons except for those essential applications where other more
environmentally suitable alternative substances or technologies are not yet available; and
3. To report to the Secretariat to the Protocol estimates of their annual production and consumption of such
other halons;
II. Transitional substances
1. To apply the following guidelines to facilitate the adoption of transitional substances with a low ozone-
depleting potential, such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), where necessary, and their timely
substitution by non-ozone depleting and more environmentally suitable alternative substances or
technologies:
(a) Use of transitional substances should be limited to those applications where other more
environmentally suitable alternative substances or technologies are not available;
(b) Use of transitional substances should not be outside the areas of application currently met by the
controlled and transitional substances, except in rare cases for the protection of human life or human
health;
(c) Transitional substances should be selected in a manner that minimizes ozone depletion, in addition
to meeting other environmental, safety and economic considerations;
(d) Emission control systems, recovery and recycling should, to the degree possible, be employed in
order to minimize emissions to the atmosphere;
(e) Transitional substances should, to the degree possible, be collected and prudently destroyed at the
end of their final use;
2. To review regularly the use of transitional substances, their contribution to ozone depletion and global
warming, and the availability of alternative products and application technologies, with a view to their
replacement by non-ozone depleting and more environmentally suitable alternatives and as the scientific
evidence requires: at present, this should be no later than 2040 and, if possible, no later than 2020;
651
III. 1,1,1–trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
1. To phase out production and consumption of methyl chloroform as soon as possible;
2. To request the Technology Review Panel to investigate the earliest technically feasible dates for
reductions and total phase-out; and
3. To request the Technology Review Panel to report their findings to the preparatory meeting of the Parties
with a view to the consideration by the Meeting of the Parties, not later than 1992;
IV. More stringent measures
1. To express appreciation to those Parties that have already taken measures more stringent and broader in
scope than those required by the Protocol;
2. To urge adoption, in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 11 of Article 2 of the Protocol, of such
measures in order to protect the ozone layer.
London, 27–29 June 1990

DECLARATIONS
Statement on control measures (1991)

[Source: paragraph 60 of the report of the Third Meeting of the Parties]
made by the Heads of Delegations representing the governments of Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland,
Austria, Germany and Denmark at the Third Meeting of the Parties
We, the heads of delegations of Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Germany and Denmark, believe
that the recent analysis of the state of the stratospheric ozone layer calls for the adoption of more stringent
control measures at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties in 1992.
We are also of the opinion that the substitution of the controlled substances with transitional substances must be
as moderate and temporary as possible.
We note that the London resolution urges the adoption, in accordance with the spirit of the paragraph 11 of
Article 2 of the Protocol, of more stringent measures in order to protect the Ozone Layer.
Because of this we express our firm determination to phase-out the production and the consumption of CFCs,
halons and carbon tetrachloride controlled by the Montreal Protocol, as soon as possible but not later than the
year 1997 and to phase-out 1,1,1–trichloromethane (methyl chloroform) as soon as possible but not later than the
year 2000. We also think it is necessary to tighten the timetable agreed upon in the Montreal Protocol taking due
account of the special situation of developing countries.
We are also determined to limit by no later than 1995 the use of transitional substances (HCFCs) to specific key
applications where other more environmentally suitable alternative substances or technologies are not available,
and to phase-out their use in those areas as soon as technically feasible.”
Nairobi, 19–21 June 1991
Resolution on methyl bromide (1992)

[Source: Annex XV of the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties]
The Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
Resolve in the light of serious environmental concerns raised in the scientific assessment, to make every effort to
reduce emissions of and to recover, recycle and reclaim, methyl bromide. They look forward to receiving the full
evaluations to be carried out by the UNEP Scientific Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, with a view to deciding on the basis of these evaluations no later than at their Seventh
652
Meeting, in 1995, a general control scheme for methyl bromide, as appropriate, including concrete targets
beginning, for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, with, for example a 25 per cent reduction as
a first step, at the latest by the year 2000, and a possible phase-out date.
Copenhagen, 25 November 1992
Question of Yugoslavia (1992)

[Source: Annex XVI of the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties]
Statement by the representative of the United Kingdom on behalf of the European Community. (This statement
was supported by the representatives of Australia, Austria, Hungary, Malaysia, Switzerland, Turkey and the
United State of America.)
“As we have already made clear on a number of occasions, the European Community and its member States do
not accept that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is the automatic continuation of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.
“In this context, we take note of General Assembly resolution 47/1, adopted on 22 September 1992, in which the
Assembly considered that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot continue
DECLARATIONS
automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations, and
decided that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should therefore apply to join the
United Nations and shall not participate in the work of the General Assembly.
“The European Community and its member States have also noted the United Nations Legal Counsel’s advice
on the applicability of the General Assembly resolution to other United Nations bodies. We regard General
Assembly resolution 47/1 as a model for action in the specialized agencies and other United Nations bodies in
due course, as appropriate.
“We do not accept that representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) may
validly represent Yugoslavia in this meeting. The presence of the representative in question is without prejudice
to future action which the Community and its member States may take.”
Statement by the representative of Yugoslavia
“We are sorry about the statements of some countries raising the question of the status of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia. We would like to stress that this approach as well as the imposed sanctions against Yugoslavia are
essentially contrary to the basic premises of both the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol.
“This conference is devoted to the protection of the ozone layer, a question of global character and raising
political issues does not help in reaching the goals of this meeting.
“Yugoslavia respects the resolutions of the United Nations. Yugoslavia does not participate, we hope
temporarily, in the meetings of the General Assembly, but Yugoslavia is not expelled from the United Nations
and its bodies and works intensively to fulfil their goals.
“At the same time we would like to give our positive contribution to the work of this conference, aware of the
fact that it is of global and our own interest.”
Memorandum on partly halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) (1993)

[Source: Annex V of the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties]
Memorandum issued by the ministers responsible for environmental matters in Germany, Liechtenstein,
Switzerland and Austria on further measures to protect the ozone layer from partly halogenated
chlorofluorocarbons [HCFCs]
In the face of the decisions reached by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on 25 November 1992 at
Copenhagen, and
653
Being concerned about the most recent measurements indicating once again a clear reduction in the protective
ozone layer above the northern hemisphere, and
Being aware of the great progress being made in the development of alternative technologies that are less
harmful to the environment,
The Ministers of the Environment of Germany, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Austria declare the following:
– In many areas complete substitution of fully halogenated CFCs can already be achieved today without
using partly halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs);
– The phase-out schedule for HCFCs as agreed upon in Copenhagen should start immediately instead of in
2004; and
– The phase-out programme for HCFCs should be completed earlier than by the year 2030. The target of
the year 2015 set by the European Community for the phase-out of HCFCs is an absolute minimum.
The Parties to the Montreal Protocol are therefore called upon to undertake all measures to phase out all ozone-
depleting substances as quickly as possible.
DECLARATIONS
Bangkok, 19 November 1993
Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) (1993)

[Source: Annex VI of the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties]
by Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Denmark, European Economic Community, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy,
Liechtenstein, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe
The above Parties present at the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,
Concerned about the continuing depletion of the ozone layer of both the northern and southern hemispheres,
being aware that reductions in the emissions of HCFC will have a beneficial effect on the ozone layer, especially
in the coming 10 years where chlorine concentrations in the atmosphere will reach a critical maximum,
being also aware that more environmentally sound alternative substances and technologies are already existing
or are rapidly being developed and that in various areas a complete substitution of CFCs can already be achieved
today without using HCFCs,
stress the need to strengthen further the control measures decided at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the
Protocol,
declare their firm determination to take all appropriate measures to limit the use of HCFC to absolute necessary
applications and to phase out the consumption of HCFCs as soon as possible but not later than the year 2015.
Bangkok, 17–19 November 1993
Declaration on methyl bromide (1993)

[Source: Annex VII of the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties]
by Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States and Zimbabwe
The above Parties present at the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,
partly due to methyl bromide,
654
Being aware that reductions in the emissions of methyl bromide will have a beneficial effect on the ozone layer,
especially in the coming 10 years where chlorine concentrations in the atmosphere will reach a critical
maximum,
Being also aware that in many cases more environmentally sound alternative substances, methods and
technologies are already available and others are rapidly being developed,
Stress the need to strengthen the control measures decided at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol,
Declare their firm determination to reduce their consumption of methyl bromide by at least 25 per cent at the
latest by the year 2000, and to phase out totally the consumption of methyl bromide as soon as technically
possible.
Bangkok, 17–19 November 1993
Declaration by countries with economies in transition (1993)

[Source: Annex VIII of the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties]
DECLARATIONS
by the Heads of the Delegations representing the governments of: Belarus, Bulgaria, Romania, Russian
Federation, and Ukraine at the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
the Ozone Layer
We, the heads of the delegations of the group of countries with economies in transition and Parties to the
Montreal Protocol attending the Meeting, namely: Belarus, Bulgaria, Romania, Russian Federation and
Ukraine, have discussed the state of affairs regarding the fulfilment of our countries’ obligations under the
Montreal Protocol,
Proceeding from a fundamental position in favour of the development of mutually advantageous, equitable and
effective international co-operation on the protection of the ozone layer on the basis of a spirit of mutual
understanding and good will,
Promoting, to the utmost of our efforts and available possibilities, the achievement of the goals of the Vienna
Convention and Montreal Protocol,
Endeavouring to preserve the consensus among the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol
on all matters under consideration,
Understanding that the majority of countries of the world community support the political and socio-economic
changes taking place in the Eastern European countries and recognize the fact that the process of restructuring
socio-economic relations takes a prolonged and difficult period of time and requires massive financial
expenditure, and also cannot occur without political, economic and moral support of other countries.
We request the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to decide at the Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol on the question of the special status of countries with economies in transition, which would provide for
concessions and a certain flexibility in the fulfilment of their obligations under the Montreal Protocol.
Bangkok, 18 November 1993
Declaration on the Multilateral Fund (1994)

[Source: Annex V of the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties]
from the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, India, Malaysia, Peru, Philippines and
Uruguay
The above Article 5 countries, Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer:
Calling upon the spirit of global partnership, with common but differentiated obligations among developed and
developing countries, established at the Rio Conference,
655
Recognizing the positive contribution of the Multilateral Fund for the encouragement of the phase-out of ODS in
Article 5 countries,
Concerned about the critical financial situation of the Multilateral Fund,
Concerned also about new restrictions on the access to the already scarce resources of the Fund to Article 5
countries based on policy considerations,
Fully aware of the fact that such tendency could have a very negative impact on Article 5 countries’
commitment to phase-out ODS,
Acknowledging the need to channel the resources of the Multilateral Fund according to the industrial strategy
adopted by Article 5 countries, inter alia, in their country programmes,
Finding the need to provide the domestic industries with elements of credibility, reliability and predictability as
regards financial support from the Fund to cover incremental costs,
Urge:
DECLARATIONS
(a) Article 2 Parties to fulfil their financial pledges to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol, in order to assure adequate resources for Article 5 Parties to meet their obligations
under the Protocol in the fastest feasible timeframe and the most environmentally safe manner;
(b) Parties to assess properly the need for a new replenishment of the Multilateral Fund in order to cover the
financial and technological need of article 5 countries;
(c) Parties to reiterate that, for all sectors and sub-sectors for the phase-out projects in Article 5 countries are
presented to the Multilateral Fund for financing, a period of up to four years should be considered during
the calculation of incremental operational costs, on the basis of costs prevailing at the time of
implementation of projects; this calculation should take place on a case-by-case basis according to the
specific characteristics of the projects;
(d) Parties to consider the need to assure adequate financing from the Multilateral Fund for all projects that,
according to the respective industrial strategies and specific social, environmental and economic
characteristics of article 5 countries, aim at phasing out ODS;
(e) Parties to reiterate the need to assure that Article 5 countries engaged in the phasing out of ODS do not
suffer loss of export revenues;
(f) Parties to confirm that companies that may export ODS-free products will be fully supported by the
Multilateral Fund, taking into account, inter alia, the benefit of the exchange of technologically advanced
products between Article 5 countries and the overall interest in the protection of the ozone layer;
(g) Article 2 countries to ensure the transfer of the best available and environmentally safe alternative
technologies to Article 5 countries under fair and most favourable conditions;
(h) Parties to ensure that the alternative technologies financed by the Multilateral Fund for industrial
reconversion are adequate and predictable and will not be subject to restrictions in the forthcoming years;
(i) Parties to consider collectively and in the most democratic manner the need to halt the tendency to
selectivity and restrictiveness of the Multilateral Fund, for the sake of preserving the commitments of the
Montreal Protocol and for the protection of the ozone layer.
Nairobi, 6–7 October, 1994
656
Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) (1995)

[Source: Annex IX of the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties]
by Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, Germany,
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom and Uruguay
The above Parties present at the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,
Being aware that further significant reductions in the emissions of hydrochlorofluorocarbons would have a
beneficial effect on the ozone layer, especially in the coming ten years where chlorine concentrations in the
atmosphere will reach a critical maximum,
Being also aware that more environmentally sound alternative substances and technologies are commercially
available for almost any applications and are being increasingly used,
1. Emphasize the fact that a complete substitution of chlorofluorocarbons need not rely on the use of
DECLARATIONS
2. Stress the need to strengthen further the control measures decided at the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to
the Protocol in countries operating under Articles 2 and 5;
3. Will take all appropriate measures to limit the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons as soon as possible.
Vienna, 7 December 1995

[Source: Annex X of the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties]
by Australia, Botswana, Canada, Iceland, Mauritius, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,
United Kingdom, United States of America, and Venezuela
The above Parties present at the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,
Commend the international community for taking constructive steps in strengthening controls on methyl
bromide,
Being aware that faster movement towards phasing out methyl bromide would reduce the human and
environmental impacts of ozone depletion,
Being aware that some Parties are able to adopt alternatives at an earlier stage, and that several Parties have
adopted domestic policies to largely phase out methyl bromide in the next few years,
Declare their firm determination, at the national level:
(a) To encourage the widespread adoption of alternatives;
(b) To take all appropriate measures to limit the consumption of methyl bromide to those applications that
are strictly necessary, and to phase out the consumption of methyl bromide as soon as possible.
Vienna, 7 December 1995
657
Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (1997)

[Source: Annex XI of the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties]
by Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Czech Republic, Denmark, European Community, Finland, France,
Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Namibia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Uganda, and the United Kingdom
The above Parties present at the Ninth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,
Concerned about the effects of HCFCs on the ozone layer,
Being aware that scientific data indicate the need for further consumption controls as well as for the introduction
of production controls on HCFCs,
Being also aware that environmentally sound and economically viable alternative substances and technologies
are or are rapidly becoming available,
Concerned by the absence of any results on HCFCs at the tenth anniversary meeting of the Parties to the
DECLARATIONS
Montreal Protocol,
Declare their position that the Parties should, at their Eleventh Meeting, decide, on the basis of scientific
evidence, the next steps to control the consumption of HCFCs, including phase-out date, reduction of the cap
and use restrictions, and production controls for HCFCs.
Montreal, 17 September 1997
Declaration regarding methyl bromide (1997)

[Source: Annex XII of the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties]
by Bolivia, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Ghana, Iceland, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Romania, Switzerland, Uruguay and Venezuela
Whereas, the World Meteorological Organization has concluded that methyl bromide is highly destructive to the
ozone layer, and that the 1994 Scientific Assessment Panel concluded that the elimination of methyl bromide is
the single most significant step Governments can take to reduce future ozone loss,
Whereas, it is also clear that methyl bromide is highly toxic to workers, public health, and the global ecosystem,
Whereas, TEAP 1994 and 1997 reports have identified a wide range of economically viable alternatives to
methyl bromide in both industrialized and developing countries,
Whereas, a recent report by Environment Canada has estimated the global economic benefits associated with
reduced UV-B exposure to be $459 billion by 2060,
Whereas, the tenth anniversary Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol failed to adopt a phase-out
schedule which will adequately protect public health and the environment from increased UV-B radiation,
Be it resolved that:
Urgent action is needed on the national and international level to phase-out methyl bromide as soon as possible.
Therefore, the undersigned countries pledge to promote sustainable alternatives to methyl bromide in their own
nations and worldwide.
Montreal, 17 September 1997
658
Declaration on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons

(HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (1998)
[Source: Annex V of the report of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties]
by Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Madagascar, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United
Kingdom and Uzbekistan
The above Parties present at the Tenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,
Mindful of the scientific indications that global warming could delay the recovery of the ozone layer,
Being aware that further reductions in the emissions of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) would have a
beneficial effect on the ozone layer, especially in the coming years when chlorine concentrations in the
DECLARATIONS
stratosphere will reach a critical maximum,
Being also aware that more environmentally sound alternative substances and technologies are commercially
available for virtually all HCFC applications and are being increasingly used,
Noting that Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol includes hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) in
view of their high global-warming potential,
Concerned that a large number of projects using HCFCs, in particular HCFC-141b, have been funded by the
Multilateral Fund, where other, more environmentally friendly, alternatives or technologies are available,
1. Call upon all bodies of the Montreal Protocol not to support the use of transitional substances (HCFCs)
where more environmentally friendly alternatives or technologies are available;
2. Urge all Parties to the Montreal Protocol to consider all ODS replacement technologies, taking into
account their total global-warming potential, so that the use of alternatives with a high contribution to
global warming should be discouraged where other, more environmentally friendly, safe and technically
and economically feasible alternatives or technologies are available.
Cairo, 24 November 1998
Beijing Declaration on renewed commitment to the protection of the ozone

layer (1999)
[Source: Annex I of the report of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties]
We, the Ministers of the Environment and heads of delegations of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
Having participated, at the invitation of the Government of the People's Republic of China, in the fifth meeting
of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Eleventh Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, from 29 November to 3 December
1999, in Beijing, China,
Having held in-depth discussions on important issues relating to the protection of the ozone layer and the
implementation of the Convention and the Protocol,
Recalling the achievements made to date in this field while earnestly seeking to address the challenges we will
face in the future,
659
Reaffirming, at the threshold of a new millennium, our commitment to the protection of the ozone layer through
a serious implementation of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol in order to achieve the phasing-
out of ozone-depleting substances to protect the environmental security of present and future generations,
Declare:
1. That we are pleased to note that major progress has been achieved in the implementation of the Montreal
Protocol in the past decade since the Helsinki Declaration was adopted, as testified by the fact that the
Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 ceased the production and consumption of CFCs
from 1 January 1996, while the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 committed themselves to
freezing their production and consumption of CFCs at the average level of the period 1995-1997, from 1
July 1999;
2. That we are further pleased to note that the reduction and phase-out of other ozone-depleting substances
are also proceeding in line with or in some cases faster than the control measures we have agreed upon in
the past Meetings of the Parties and welcome the further progress agreed upon at this Meeting of the
Parties;
3. That we take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation for the efforts made towards this
DECLARATIONS
progress by Governments, international organizations, industry, experts and other relevant groups;
4. That we are fully aware, however, that we cannot afford to rest on our laurels, since scientists have
informed us that the ozone hole has reached record proportions and the ozone layer recovery is a long
way from being achieved;
5. That we are keenly aware that the Parties will have to face new challenges, as we have now entered a new
period of substantive reduction of ozone-depleting substances from 1 July 1999 and, therefore, must
ensure the continuation and development of our significant financial and technical cooperation under
paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Montreal Protocol, to enable all countries to take full advantage of
benefits offered by the latest technological advances, including the continuation of the initiatives to
ensure funding for the low-volume-consuming countries;
6. That we therefore appeal to all of the Parties to demonstrate a stronger political will and take more
effective action to fulfil the obligations under the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol, and to
urge all States that have not yet done so to ratify, approve or accede to the Vienna Convention and the
Montreal Protocol and its Amendments;
7. That we also appeal to the relevant Parties to take all appropriate measures to address illegal trade in
ozone-depleting substances and to safeguard the achievements attained to date;
8. That we call upon the Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to continue to maintain
adequate funding and to promote the expeditious transfer of environmentally sound technologies, under
the Montreal Protocol, to the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, to help them fulfil their
obligations; and also call upon Parties operating under paragraph 1 of article 5 to take all appropriate
measures necessary to secure the efficient use of the resources provided by the Parties not operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5;
9. That we further appeal to the international community to demonstrate more concern for the issues of
ozone layer protection and for the protection of the global atmosphere in general, taking into account the
need to promote social and economic development in all countries.
Beijing, 3 December 1999
660
Ouagadougou Declaration at the Twelfth Meeting of the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol (2000)
[Source: Annex IV of the report of the Twelfth Meeting of the Parties]
We, Ministers of Environment and head of delegations of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Having accepted the invitation of the Government of Burkina Faso to the high-level segment of the Twelfth
Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Ouagadougou, from 13 to 14 December 2000;
Having noted the progress made by all the Parties in the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances;
Taking note of the cooperation between the Montreal Protocol and the Basel Convention that was called for at
this meeting.
Fully appreciating the important work carried out by national Governments, the Multilateral Fund and various
agencies in the areas of dissemination of information, awareness-raising and capacity-building;
DECLARATIONS
Reaffirming, at the beginning of the new millennium, our commitment to protect the ozone layer by ensuring the
effective implementation of the Montreal Protocol and, where possible, accelerating our efforts to phase out the
production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances;
Taking into account the importance of national action and international cooperation to address the differentiated
situation of developing countries in the implementation of the Montreal Protocol;
Noting, however, that much more work remains to be done to ensure the protection of the ozone layer;
Declare the following:
1. We highly appreciate the important progress made in the implementation of the Montreal Protocol over
the last decade since the adoption of the Helsinki Declaration, as demonstrated by the virtual elimination
of the production and consumption of CFCs since 1 January 1996 by the Parties not operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5, and the significant aggregate reductions in ozone-depleting substances achieved
to date by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;
2. We express our profound gratitude to the governments and the international organizations, the industrial
sector, experts and groups involved who have contributed to this progress;
3. We encourage all Parties to take the necessary steps to prevent illegal production and consumption, and
trade in ozone-depleting substances and equipment and products containing them;
4. We encourage strong international cooperation and national action in the areas of:
• transfer of technology;
• know-how and capacity-building, and
• harmonized of customs codes;
5. We appeal for the timely payment of agreed national contributions to the Multilateral Fund for the
implementation of the Montreal Protocol;
6. We encourage all Parties to ratify and implement in full the amendments to the Montreal Protocol;
7. We invite the Parties to integrate ozone layer protection into socio-economic development programmes;
661
8. We encourage all Parties to adopt and apply regulations and pursue awareness-raising campaigns for the
public and all stakeholders who use ozone-depleting substances, and encourage the adoption of more
environmentally sound alternatives.
9. We encourage regional ozone networks to continue to assist National Ozone Units.
Colombo Declaration on renewed commitment to the protection of the

ozone layer to mark the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable
Development, in 2002, the 15th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol and
the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Multilateral Fund (2001)
[Source: Annex V of the report of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties]
We Ministers of the Environment and Heads of Delegations at the 13th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, held in Colombo from 16 to 19 October 2001,
Having participated, at the invitation of the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, in
the high-level segment, held on 18 and 19 October 2001, of that Meeting of the Parties,
DECLARATIONS
Having noted the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Multilateral Fund and its achievements to date for
the protection of the ozone layer,
Recalling the progress made by all the Parties in phasing out ozone depleting substances,
Fully appreciating the efforts by national Governments, the Multilateral Fund, the United Nations Environment
Programme and the various implementing agencies to make the Montreal Protocol the most successful
multilateral environmental agreement and to achieve universal ratification,
Recognizing the interconnectedness of environmental issues such as climate change and ozone-layer depletion,
Recalling that the year 2002 will be the 10th anniversary of the Rio Conference on Environment and
Development, the Earth Summit, and the 15th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol,
Recognizing the importance of sharing the experience gained under the Montreal Protocol with other multilateral
environmental agreements in order to achieve the same progress under those agreements;
Declare:
1. That we are pleased to note the significant contributions made by the Multilateral Fund during the last
10 years in the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, that has made possible significant progress in
compliance by Article 5 countries;
2. That we express our sincere gratitude to the Governments, international organizations, non-governmental
organizations, experts and individuals that have contributed to that progress;
3. That we urge Governments and all stakeholders to take due care in using new substances that may have
an ODP, and to take informed decisions on the use of transitional substances;
4. That we appeal to the Article 5 Parties to sustain the permanent phase-out of ODS and comply with their
phase-out obligations by establishing the necessary domestic policy and legal regimes;
5. That we appeal to all Parties to cooperate in ensuring that the Multilateral Fund receives the necessary
replenishment for its next triennium, 2003 – 2005;
6. That we appeal to all non-Article 5 Parties to continue their efforts to contribute to the Multilateral Fund;
7. That we urge Parties to identify and use available, accessible and affordable alternative substances and
technologies that minimize environmental harm while protecting the ozone layer;
662
8. That we are fully aware that much work remains to be done to ensure the protection of ozone layer;
9. That we decide to share the successful experience of the Montreal Protocol at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2002.
Declaration by the Pacific Island countries attending the 13th Meeting of

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (2001)
[Source: Annex VI of the report of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties]
We, the Governments of Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Papua New Guinea and Samoa, are conscious of the serious threat
that ozone-depleting substances present to the environment and to the global population.
We note the valuable progress that has been achieved in addressing ozone-depletion by Parties to the Montreal
Protocol regarding substances that deplete the ozone layers.
Pacific Island Countries are among the smallest consumers of ozone depleting substances in the world. These are
used in areas that the critical to our economic development which includes fishing, tourism and food storage.
DECLARATIONS
We declare our intention to continue working towards the fulfillment of the goals of the Convention and the
Protocol at the national, regional and global level.
We acknowledge the initial assistance provided by the Multilateral Fund, the Government of Australia and the
Government of New Zealand through the United Nations Environment Programme Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics (UNEP-DTIE) and South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) for the
preparation of national compliance action plans (NCAPs).
In this context, we recognise that regional cooperation has been identified as an effective means to complement
national programmes in implementing environmental programmes in Pacific Island Countries. Regarding our
intention to continue working for its successful fulfillment at the global as well as regional scale, we undertake
to work together in the context of a regional strategy for the Pacific region that all Pacific Island Countries shall:
(a) ratify the Montreal Protocol and its amendments where applicable;
(b) urgently adopt import and export controls of ozone-depleting substances, particularly for the use of
licensing systems and appropriate legislation;
(c) take all the necessary measures to comply with the plans to reduce and eliminate the consumption
and production of ozone-depleting substances;
(d) ensure effective fulfillment of Article 7 regarding the need to report on the consumption of ozone-
(e) commit the accelerated phase-out of CFCs, preferably to year 2005.
We request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to financially support the Pacific Island Countries,
taking into account their specific needs to implement national programmes and regional cooperation mechanism
to enable them to comply with the Montreal Protocol.
We urge all Parties to take account of the unique circumstances of the Pacific Island Countries when they
consider the levels of replenishment for the Multilateral Fund during the triennium 2003 to 2005.

[Source: Annex VIII of the report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties]
Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, the European Community, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
663
noting that Parties have made substantial progress in the adoption of effective alternatives;
Mindful that exemptions must comply fully with decision IX/6, and are intended to be limited, temporary
derogations from the phase-out of methyl bromide;
Resolved that each Party’s methyl bromide use should decrease each year, targeting the closure of the critical-use
exemption as soon as possible in non-Article 5 Parties;
Taking account of the recommendation by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel that critical-use
exemptions should not be authorized in cases where feasible options are registered, available locally and used
commercially by similarly situated enterprises;
Declare their firm determination at the national level:
To take all appropriate measures to limit the consumption of methyl bromide to those strictly necessary
applications that are in keeping with the spirit of the Protocol and will not lead to an increase in consumption
after phase-out.
DECLARATIONS
Declaration on limitations on the consumption of methyl bromide (2004)

[Source: Annex IV of the report of the First Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties]
by Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malaysia,
Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia,
South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom
and the European Community
The above Parties present at the first Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties.
noting that Parties have made substantial progress in the adoption of effective alternatives,
Resolved that each Party’s methyl bromide use should decrease, targeting the closure of the critical-use
exemption as soon as possible in non-Article 5 Parties,
Declare their firm intention at the national level to take all appropriate measures to strive for significantly and
progressively decreasing production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses with the intention of
completely phasing out methyl bromide whenever technically and economically feasible alternatives are
available.
Montreal, 26 March 2004
Prague Declaration on enhancing cooperation among chemicals-related

multilateral environmental agreements (2004)
[Source: Annex V of the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties]
We, the ministers of the environment and heads of delegation of the following Parties to the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer attending the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties of the Montreal
Protocol in the city of Prague:
Algeria, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, European Community, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
664
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian
Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland,
Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, Viet Nam, Zambia
Recognizing the need to continue the momentum of unique and successful cooperation among the world
communities in negotiating and implementing the Montreal Protocol,
Aware of the need to maintain the integrity of the Montreal Protocol to continue on the road to the recovery of
the ozone layer and to its subsequent sustainable preservation,
Conscious of the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the need
successfully to implement the Montreal Protocol in order to attain sustainable development objective,
Cognizant of the findings of the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change on interlinkages between ozone layer depletion and climate change,
Recognizing also that the mainstreaming of the environmental dimension into national strategies for sustainable
DECLARATIONS
development and poverty reduction remains an important challenge to all countries,
Aware of the efforts of the world community to develop a strategic approach to international chemicals
management,
1. Reaffirm their commitment to continue their efforts to protect the global environment and the ozone layer,
bearing in mind in particular the Rio Principles, including the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities;
2. Stress the need in particular, to implement the relevant elements of the Plan of Implementation of the
World Summit on Sustainable Development concerning the sound management of chemicals, including
the prevention of international illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances, hazardous chemicals and
hazardous wastes;
3. Emphasize the need for developing countries to implement multilateral environmental agreements and
mainstream environmental considerations in their sustainable development and poverty reductions
strategies to maximise the efficiency of the technical and financial support provided;
4. Reiterate the need to help provide support for the implementation of chemicals-related multilateral
environmental agreements to developing countries and countries with economies in transition, for the
Montreal Protocol including through an adequate replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol and the Global Environment Facility and enhanced cooperation
between these funds;
5. Enhance the collaborative efforts towards technological development, in particular those related to the
protection of the ozone layer and the mitigation of climate change, and transfer technology to the
countries that need it;
6. Seek alliance with other multilateral instruments like the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions to
contribute to an effective strategic approach to international chemicals management; and
7. Declare the willingness of the Parties assembled in this City of Bridges to contribute to building bridges
between the relevant multilateral environmental agreements and to help them draw inspiration from the
success of the Montreal Protocol while, in turn, drawing inspiration from them in meeting future
challenges.
Prague, 26 November 2004
665
Montreal Declaration (2007)

[Source: Annex IV of the report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties]
The Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
Celebrating with pride, on the occasion of the Montreal Protocol’s twentieth anniversary, the successful
conclusion of a landmark agreement on the accelerated phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons thereby making
great strides in the global effort to protect the ozone layer and at the same time providing opportunities for
further beneficial impacts to the environment including for climate change,
Acknowledging with honour the historic global cooperation achieved over the past twenty years under the
Montreal Protocol to restore and protect the Earth’s ozone layer for this and future generations, and noting in
particular:
That the Montreal Protocol has made substantial and verified progress toward the recovery of the ozone
layer and is recognized as one of the most successful multilateral environmental agreements,
That the success of the Montreal Protocol reflects an unprecedented spirit of cooperation between
developed and developing countries,
DECLARATIONS
That the Montreal Protocol operates on the concept of shared but differentiated responsibilities of the
Parties with a commitment by all Parties to participate and be fully engaged,
That the Montreal Protocol is underpinned by institutions providing scientific, economic, environmental
and technical support informing policy making by Parties, as well as the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which has been instrumental in assisting Parties with
compliance and associated capacity-building,
That the Ozone Secretariat has fully supported all Parties in the success of the Montreal Protocol,
That the Montreal Protocol has stimulated the development of technological innovations contributing
significantly to the protection of the environment and human health,
That actions taken to protect the ozone layer have resulted in significant beneficial impacts on global
atmospheric issues, including climate change,
That the Montreal Protocol, from its inception, has welcomed and benefited from broad participation
across all parts of society,
Recognizing that even with the achievements of the Montreal Protocol the ozone layer remains vulnerable and
will require many decades to recover and that its long-term protection is dependent on continued vigilance,
dedication and action by the Parties,
Recognizing the importance of all Parties meeting their phase-out obligations and taking appropriate measures to
prevent ozone-depleting substances from threatening the ozone layer,
Recognizing the continuing role that the Montreal Protocol plays in benefiting the most vulnerable parts of the
planet and their populations,
1. Reaffirm their commitment to phase out the consumption and production of ozone-depleting substances
consistent with their Montreal Protocol obligations;
2. Recognize the need for continued vigilance to safeguard progress made to date on achieving the
objectives of the Montreal Protocol and to address emerging issues;
3. Strive for the earliest possible ratification of all amendments to the Protocol;
666
4. Recognize the historic and ongoing importance of near universal participation in a treaty with
demonstrable, measurable and ambitious yet pragmatic goals and the role played by the mechanisms
established, in particular the Multilateral Fund, to provide technical, policy and financial assistance;
5. Recognize the importance of assisting Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
through various means including transfer of technology, information exchange and partnership for
capacity-building, in fulfilling their obligations under the Protocol;
6. Acknowledge the vital contribution of science to our understanding of the ozone layer and threats to it
and that protection of the ozone layer will require a continued global commitment and a sustained level of
scientific research, monitoring and vigilance;
7. Recognize the extraordinary accomplishments and services provided to the Parties by the Montreal
Protocol’s supporting institutions and the importance of their continued role;
8. Recognize the importance of accelerating the recovery of the ozone layer in a way that also addresses
other environmental issues, notably climate change;
9. Recognize the opportunity for cooperation between the Montreal Protocol and other relevant international
DECLARATIONS
bodies and agreements to enhance human and environmental protection.
Doha Declaration (2008)

[Source: Annex VI of the report of the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties]
We the ministers of the environment and heads of delegation of the 143 Parties attending the eighth meeting of
the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Twentieth
Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
Acknowledging the progress that has been made to address the problem of depletion of the ozone layer through
the global elimination of production of over 96 per cent of historic levels of ozone-depleting substances between
1987 and 2007,
Recognizing that this progress was achieved through:
(a) Cooperation between developed and developing countries, including provision being made to meet the
needs of developing countries, as manifested by: the near universal participation in the Protocol by all
countries; efficiency and transparency of the Protocol bodies, including the Multilateral Fund and its
Executive Committee, the Implementation Committee; the assessment panels of the Protocol, and the
Ozone and Multilateral Fund secretariats;
(b) Triennial replenishments of the Multilateral Fund amounting to over $2.4 billion from 1991-2008;
excellent compliance by all Parties with the Protocol’s provisions; capacity building in all developing
country Parties’ to the Protocol through funding of over 140 national ozone units;
(c) Phase-out of more than 80 per cent of the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances by
the developing countries; agreement by all Parties to accelerate the phase-out of their production and
consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons; the extraordinary efforts and adaptability of the staff of the
international and national implementing agencies to respond to the evolving needs of the Parties; the
enormous and generous contributions of industry, non-governmental organizations and academia in
supporting the Protocol’s efforts;
(d) A firm commitment to maximizing and exploring the broad-reaching benefits of the Protocol, in
particular to deterring climate change in addition to ozone layer protection,
Taking account of the remaining work that needs to be done to protect the ozone layer, including the obligations
of developing countries to reduce their production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons, halons and carbon
tetrachloride to zero by 1 January 2010, and methyl bromide and methyl chloroform by 2015, and eventually
eliminate their global production and consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons,
667
Recognizing the generosity of past, present and future contributions of Parties to the Multilateral Fund and its
essential role in securing the objectives of the Montreal Protocol,
Cognizant of the fact that safeguarding the ozone layer will require continued global commitment, a sustained
level of scientific research and monitoring and the taking of precautionary measures to control equitably total
global emissions of substances that deplete the ozone layer,
Acknowledging that phasing out ozone depleting substances has a positive impact on the climate system and
human health, and that many of the actions that can still be taken by the Protocol Parties to investigate and
reduce the impact of ozone depleting substances can have significant benefits in the efforts to address climate
change including the need for urgent and effective action,
Wishing to highlight the operational leadership of the Montreal Protocol in addressing environmental issues in a
holistic fashion that takes into account relationships with other institutions,
A. On the issue of destruction of ozone-depleting substances
1. Resolve to undertake an initial effort to destroy banks of ozone-depleting substances in order urgently to
address their ozone and climate impact, and through a process that is consistent with the requirements of
DECLARATIONS
other international legal regimes;
2. Commit ourselves to undertaking further studies to assess the technical and economic feasibility of
destroying ozone-depleting substances, taking into account their ozone and climate impact;
3. Commit ourselves also to undertaking pilot projects to generate practical data and experience on
management and financing modalities, achieving climate benefits, and exploring opportunities to leverage
co-financing in order to maximize environmental benefits;
B. On the issue of replenishment
4. Underline the commitment to a replenishment of the Multilateral Fund of $490 million for the period
2009–2011 with the understanding that these funds will be used to enable developing countries to meet
their obligations under the Protocol;
C. On atmospheric measurements
5. Urge the Governments of the world to seek to ensure full coverage of the relevant data gathering
programmes, in order to ensure that the atmosphere including its stratospheric ozone and its interrelation
with climatic change is kept under continuous observation;
D. On the Government of Qatar initiatives
6. Applaud the two initiatives announced by the Government of Qatar to establish:
(a) A monitoring station in Qatar, for monitoring the Ozone Layer and the Earth’s stratosphere in
collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of
America;
(b) An Ozone Layer and Climate Change Research Centre, within Qatar’s Science and Technology Park
and in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme, for conducting scientific
research on ozone-depleting substance alternatives and developing environmentally friendly
applications;
E. On this and future paperless meetings
7. Recognize the outstanding contribution of the Government of Qatar in embracing and conducting, for the
first time in the history of the United Nations, a very successful paperless meeting, a practice which we
hope will be extended to the conduct of future United Nations meetings; note, once again, the innovative
668
contributions that Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol can make; and express
great hope that the success achieved in Doha will serve as a model and pave the way to holding virtually
paperless meetings in other United Nations forums and elsewhere;
8. Express great appreciation to the Government of Qatar for the donation of the computers and paperless
system, which will enable future United Nations meetings to be held in a paperless manner.
Declaration on High-GWP alternatives to ODSs (2009)

[Source: Annex III of the report of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties]
By: Angola, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada,
Guinea Bissau, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Mexico, Micronesia, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Papau New Guinea, Palau, Saint Lucia,
Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, United States, Zambia.
Aware of the wide agreement among scientists that climate change will threaten present and future generations
unless more stringent measures are adopted and implemented urgently,
Concerned that climate change is occurring faster than previously predicted,
DECLARATIONS
Mindful that certain high-GWP alternatives to ODSs used to replace certain ozone depleting substances are
powerful greenhouse gases and are contributing to climate change,
Emphasize the fact that the substitution of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) need not necessarily rely on the
use of high-GWP alternatives;
Also aware that more environmentally sound alternative substances and technologies already exist or are rapidly
being developed and that in various sectors a transition away from high-GWP alternatives to ODSs can already
be achieved,
Also aware that the Montreal Protocol is well-suited to phase-down high-GWP alternatives to ODSs, having
already phased-out similar chemicals in the same sectors that now utilize high-GWP alternatives to ODSs,
Stress the need to review the possibility of appropriately amending the Montreal Protocol to include a
progressive reduction of the production and consumption of select high-GWP alternatives to ODSs as controlled
substances, and to ensure appropriate coordination with the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, including adequate
reporting,
Recognizing that certain high-GWP alternatives to ODSs are within the basket of greenhouse gases controlled by
the Kyoto Protocol and amendments to the Montreal Protocol should be agreed to in a manner that neither
excludes controlled high-GWP substances from the scope of the UNFCCC or Kyoto Protocol, nor affect existing
commitments undertaken by Parties thereto,
Encourage all states to urgently consider phasing-down the production and consumption of high-GWP
alternatives to ODSs where alternatives exist,
Agree to commit to encourage and facilitate the accelerated development of climate friendly substituting
chemicals, products, and technologies for all applications of HCFCs,
Agree to facilitate the access to relevant scientific information, research results, training, and the transfer of
technology and its implementation to all Article 5 Parties,
Agree to take appropriate measures to limit the use of high-GWP alternatives to ODSs as soon as practicable.
Port Ghalib, Egypt, 8 November 2009
669
Declaration on the global transition away from hydrochlorofluorocarbons

(HCFCs) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) (2010)
[Source: Annex III of the report of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties]
Recognizing that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are replacements for ozone-depleting substances being phased out
under the Montreal Protocol, and that the projected increase in their use is a major challenge for the world’s
climate system that must be addressed through concerted international action,
Recognizing also that the Montreal Protocol is well-suited to making progress in replacing
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) with low-global warming potential
alternatives,
Mindful that certain high-global warming potential alternatives to HCFCs and other ozone-depleting substances
are covered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol and that
action under the Montreal Protocol should not have the effect of exempting them from the scope of the
commitments contained thereunder,
Interested in harmonizing appropriate policies toward a global transition from HCFCs to environmentally sound
DECLARATIONS
alternatives,
Encourage all Parties to promote policies and measures aimed at selecting low-GWP alternatives to HCFCs and
other ozone-depleting substances;;
Declare our intent to pursue further action under the Montreal Protocol aimed at transitioning the world to
environmentally sound alternatives to HCFCs and CFCs.
Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Austria, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Benin,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Comoros, Congo,
Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican
Republic, Egypt, Estonia, European Union, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia,
Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Macedonia, Malta,
Mexico, Micronesia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger,
Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome
and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste,
Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Viet
Nam.
Bali Declaration on Transitioning to Low Global Warming Potential

Alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances (2011)
[Source: Annex IX of the report of the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties]
We, the Parties to the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and its Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, having met in Bali, Indonesia from 21 to 25 November 2011,
Cognizant that certain ozone depleting substances have high global warming potential and that the mitigation of
ozone depleting substances could contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
Recalling the general obligation under Article 2 of the Vienna Convention that Parties take appropriate measures
in accordance with the provisions of that Convention and of its protocol to which they are party to protect human
health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities which
modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer,
Also recalling decision XIX/6, in which the Meeting of the Parties decided to encourage parties to promote the
selection of alternatives to ozone depleting substances that minimize environmental impacts,
670
Mindful that certain high global warming potential alternatives to ozone depleting substances are contributing to
environmental degradation,
Reaffirming the need for a transition to alternatives which are technically proven, economically viable, and
environmentally benign to ozone depleting substances,
Recalling the declaration signed by 90 Parties at the 22nd Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in
Bangkok 2010,
Emphasizing the importance of capacity building, financial, technical and other assistance needed by Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol for transitioning to low global warming
potential alternatives,
Acknowledging the decision of the Parties at the 23rd Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Bali
concerning additional information on alternatives to ozone depleting substances,
Hereby:
1. Note with appreciation the efforts of the Parties operating under Paragraph 1 Article 5, which selected
DECLARATIONS
low global warming potential alternatives for implementing their HCFCs Phase-out Management Plans
for compliance with the 2013 and 2015 control targets;
2. Call on Parties to conduct further studies on low global warming potential alternatives to ozone depleting
substances, that include, but are not limited to, the economic impact and its feasibility, technical
feasibility, market availability and impact on human health and safety of such alternatives in particular
with enhanced engagement of stakeholders, particularly the industry;
3. Invite Parties and others in a position to do so, to provide suitable and sustainable financial as well as
technical assistance, including technology transfer and capacity building needed by Parties, in particular
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 for transitioning to low global warming potential
alternatives to ozone depleting substances that minimize environmental impacts;
4. Call on parties and the Ozone Secretariat to continue coordination between the Vienna Convention and its
Montreal Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto
Protocol to ensure their mutually supportive implementation and the achievement of their objectives;
5. Call on Parties, while recognizing national priorities, to explore further and pursue under the Montreal
Protocol the most effective means of achieving the transition to low global warming potential alternatives
to ozone depleting substances.
671
Section 4
Rules of Procedure
Rules of procedure for Meetings of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol
[Source: Annex I of the report of the First Meeting of the Parties]
Purposes
Rule 1
These rules of procedure shall apply to any meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer convened in accordance with article 11 of the Protocol.
Definitions
Rule 2
For the purposes of these rules:
1985;
2. “Protocol” means the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, adopted on 16
September 1987;
PROCEDURE
RULES OF
3. “Parties” means, unless the text otherwise indicates, Parties to the Protocol;
4. “Conference of the Parties” means the Conference of the Parties established in accordance with Article 6
of the Convention;
5. “Meeting of the Parties means the meeting of the Parties convened in accordance with Article 11 of the
Protocol;
6. “Regional economic integration organization” means an organization defined in Article 1, paragraph 6, of

the Convention;
7. “President” means the President elected in accordance with rule 21, paragraph 1, of the present rules of
procedure;
8. “Secretariat” means the international organization designated as Secretariat of the Convention by the
Conference of the Parties in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Convention;
9. “Meeting” means any ordinary or extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties.
Place of meetings
Rule 3
The meetings of the Parties shall take place at the seat of the Secretariat, unless other appropriate arrangements
are made by the Secretariat in consultation with the Parties.
675
Section 4 Rules of procedure
Dates of meetings
Rule 4
1. Ordinary meetings of the Parties shall be held once every year, unless the Parties decide otherwise. In
years when there is an ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention, that
meeting and the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol shall be held in conjunction.
2. At each ordinary meeting, the Parties shall fix the opening date and duration of its next ordinary meeting.
3. Extraordinary meetings of the Parties shall be convened at such times as may be deemed necessary by the
Conference of the Parties or at the written request of any Party, provided that, within six months of the
request being communicated to them by the Secretariat, it is supported by at least one third of the Parties.
4. In the case of an extraordinary meeting convened at the written request of a Party, it shall be convened not
more than ninety days after the date at which the request is supported by at least one third of the Parties in
accordance with paragraph 3 of this rule.
Rule 5
The Secretariat shall notify all Parties of the dates and venue of meetings at least two months before the meeting.
Observers
Rule 6
1. The Secretariat shall notify the United Nations and its specialized agencies, the International Atomic
PROCEDURE
Energy Agency and any State not party to the Protocol of any meeting so that they may be represented by
RULES OF
observers.
2. Such observers may, upon invitation of the President, and if there is no objection from the Parties present,
participate without the right to vote in the proceedings of any meeting.
Rule 7
1. The Secretariat shall notify any body or agency, whether national or international, governmental or non-
governmental, qualified in fields relating to the protection of the ozone layer which has informed the
Secretariat of its wish to be represented, of any meeting so that they may be represented by observers,
subject to the condition that their admission to the meeting is not objected to by at least one third of the
Parties present at the meeting.
2. Such observers may, upon invitation of the President, and if there is no objection from the Parties present,
participate without the right to vote in the proceedings of any meeting in matters of direct concern to the
body or agency they represent.
Agenda
Rule 8
In agreement with the President, the Secretariat shall prepare the provisional agenda of each meeting.
Rule 9
The provisional agenda of each ordinary meeting shall include:
1. Items specified in article 11 of the Protocol;
2. Items the inclusion of which has been decided at a previous meeting;
676
3. Items referred to in rule 15 of the present rules of procedure;
4. Any item proposed by a Party before the agenda is circulated;
5. The provisional budget as well as all questions pertaining to the accounts and financial arrangements.
Rule 10
The provisional agenda, together with supporting documents, for each ordinary meeting shall be distributed by
the Secretariat to the Parties at least two months before the opening of the meeting.
Rule 11
The Secretariat shall, with the agreement of the President, include any question suitable for the agenda which
may arise between the dispatch of the provisional agenda and the opening of the meeting in a supplement to the
provisional agenda, which the meeting shall examine together with the provisional agenda.
Rule 12
The meeting when adopting the agenda may add, delete, defer or amend items. Only items which are considered
by the meeting to be urgent and important may be added to the agenda.
Rule 13
The provisional agenda for an extraordinary meeting shall consist only of those items proposed for consideration
in the request for the holding of the extraordinary meeting. It shall be distributed to the Parties at the same time
as the invitation to the extraordinary meeting.
PROCEDURE
RULES OF
Rule 14
The Secretariat shall report to the meeting on the administrative and financial implications of all substantive
agenda items submitted to the meeting, before they are considered by it. Unless the meeting decides otherwise,
no such item shall be considered until at least forty-eight hours after it has received the Secretariat’s report on the
administrative and financial implications.
Rule 15
Any item of the agenda of an ordinary meeting, consideration of which has not been completed at the meeting,
shall be included automatically in the agenda of the next ordinary meeting, unless otherwise decided by the
meeting of the Parties.
Representation and credentials

Rule 16
Each Party participating in the meeting shall be represented by a delegation consisting of a head of delegation
and such other accredited representatives, alternate representatives and advisers as may be required.
Rule 17
An alternate representative or an adviser may act as a representative upon designation by the head of delegation.
Rule 18
The credentials of representatives and the names of alternate representatives and advisers shall be submitted to
the Executive Secretary of the meeting if possible not later than twenty-four hours after the opening of the
meeting. Any later change in the composition of the delegation shall also be submitted to the Executive
Secretary. The credentials shall be issued either by the Head of State or Government or by the Minister of
677
Foreign Affairs or, in the case of a regional economic integration organization, by the competent authority of that
organization.
Rule 19
The officers of any meeting shall examine the credentials and submit their report to the meeting.
Rule 20
Pending a decision of the meeting upon their credentials representatives shall be entitled to participate
provisionally in the meeting.
Officers
Rule 21
1. At the commencement of the first session of each ordinary meeting, a President, three Vice-Presidents
and a Rapporteur are to be elected from among the representatives of the Parties present at the meeting.
They will serve as the officers of the meeting. In electing its officers the Meeting of the Parties shall have
due regard to the principle of equitable geographical representation. The offices of the President and
Rapporteur of the Meeting of the Parties shall normally be subject to rotation among the five groups of
States referred to in Section 1, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution 2997 (XXVI) of 15
December 1972, by which the United Nations Environment Programme was established. [This paragraph
was subject to amendment at the second meeting of the Parties – see decision II/19 in Section 2.]
2. The President, three Vice-Presidents and the Rapporteur elected at an ordinary meeting shall remain in
office until their successors are elected at the next ordinary meeting and shall serve in that capacity at any
PROCEDURE
RULES OF
intervening extraordinary meetings. On occasion, one or more of these officers may be re-elected for one
further consecutive term.
3. The President shall participate in the meeting in that capacity and shall not at the same time exercise the
rights of a representative of a Party. In such a case, the President or the Party concerned shall designate
another representative who shall be entitled to represent the Party in the meeting and to exercise the right
to vote.
Rule 22
1. In addition to exercising the powers conferred upon him elsewhere by these rules, the President shall
declare the opening and closing of the meeting, preside at the sessions of the meeting, ensure the
observance of these rules, accord the right to speak, put questions to the vote and announce decisions. The
President shall rule on points of order and, subject to these rules, shall have complete control of the
proceedings and over the maintenance of order thereat. The President may propose to the meeting of the
Parties the closure of the list of speakers, a limitation on the time to be allowed to speakers and on the
number of times each representative may speak on a question, the adjournment or the closure of the
debate and the suspension or the adjournment of a session.
2. The President, in the exercise of his functions, remains under the authority of the meeting of the Parties.
Rule 23
If the President is temporarily absent from a session or any part thereof, he shall designate a Vice-President to act
as President. [This paragraph was subject to amendment at the third meeting of the Parties – see decision III/14
in Section 2.]
Rule 24
If an officer of the Bureau resigns or is otherwise unable to complete his term of office or to perform his
functions, a representative of the same Party shall be named by the Party concerned to replace him for the
678
remainder of his mandate. [This paragraph was subject to amendment at the third meeting of the Parties – see
decision III/14 in Section 2.]
Rule 25
At the first session of each ordinary meeting, the President of the previous ordinary meeting, or in his absence, a
Vice-President, shall preside until the meeting has elected a President for the meeting.
Committees and working groups

Rule 26
1. The meeting may establish such committees or working groups as may be required for the transaction of
its business.
2. The meeting may decide that such committees or working groups may meet in the period between
ordinary meetings.
3. Unless otherwise decided by the meeting, the chairman for each such committee or working group shall
be elected by the meeting. The meeting shall determine the matters to be considered by each such
committee or working group and may authorize the President, upon the request of the chairman of a
committee or working group, to adjust the allocation of work.
4. Without prejudice to paragraph 3 of this rule, each committee or working group shall elect its own
officers.
5. A majority of the Parties designated by the meeting to take part in the committee or working group shall
PROCEDURE
RULES OF
constitute a quorum, but in the event of the committee or working group being open-ended one quarter of
the Parties shall constitute a quorum.
6. Unless otherwise decided by the meeting, these rules shall apply mutatis mutandis to the proceedings of
committees and working groups, except that:
(a) The chairman of a committee or working group may exercise the right to vote; and
(b) Decisions of committees or working groups shall be taken by a majority of the Parties present and
voting, except that the reconsideration of a proposal or of an amendment to a proposal shall require
the majority established by rule 38.
Secretariat
Rule 27
1. The head of the international organization designated as Secretariat of the Convention shall be the
Secretary-General of any meeting. He may delegate his functions to a member of the Secretariat. He, or
his representative, shall act in that capacity in all sessions of the meeting and in all sessions of committees
or working groups of the meeting.
2. The Secretary-General shall appoint an Executive Secretary of the meeting and shall provide and direct
the staff required by the meeting and the committees or working groups of the meeting.
Rule 28
The Secretariat shall, in accordance with these rules:
(a) Arrange for interpretation at the meeting;
679
(b) Receive, translate, reproduce and distribute the documents of the meeting;
(c) Publish and circulate the official documents of the meeting;
(d) Make and arrange for keeping of sound recordings of the meeting;
(e) Arrange for the custody and preservation of the documents of the meeting in the archives of the
international organization designated as secretariat of the Convention; and
(f) Generally perform all other work that the meeting may require.
Conduct of business
Rule 29
Sessions of the meeting, and of committees and working groups established by the meeting shall be held in
private, unless the meeting otherwise decides.
Rule 30
The President may declare a session of the meeting open, and permit the debate to proceed and have any decision
taken when representatives of at least two thirds of the Parties are present.
Rule 31
1. No one may speak at a session of the meeting without having previously obtained the permission of the
President. Without prejudice to rules 32, 33, 34 and 36, the President shall call upon speakers in the order
PROCEDURE
RULES OF
in which they signify their desire to speak. The Secretariat shall be in charge of drawing up a list of such
speakers. The President may call a speaker to order if his remarks are not relevant to the subject under
discussion.
2. The meeting may, on a proposal from the President, or from any Party, limit the time allowed to each
speaker and the number of times each representative may speak on a question. Before a decision is taken,
two representatives may speak in favor of and two against a proposal to set such limits. When the debate
is limited and a speaker exceeds the allotted time, the President shall call him to order without delay.
Rule 32
The chairman or rapporteur of a committee or working group may be accorded precedence for the purpose of
explaining the conclusions arrived at by his committee or working group.
Rule 33
During the discussion of any matter, a representative may at any time raise a point of order which shall be
decided immediately by the President in accordance with these rules. A representative may appeal against the
ruling of the President. The appeal shall be put to the vote immediately and the ruling shall stand unless
overruled by a majority of the Parties present and voting. A representative may not, in raising a point of order,
speak on the substance of the matter under discussion.
Rule 34
Any motion calling for a decision on the competence of the meeting to discuss any matter or to adopt a proposal
or an amendment to a proposal submitted to it shall be put to the vote before the matter is discussed or a vote is
taken on the proposal or amendment in question.
680
Rule 35
1. Without prejudice to paragraph 2 of this rule, proposals and amendments to proposals shall normally be
introduced in writing by the Parties and handed to the Secretariat, which shall circulate copies to
delegations. As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed or put to the vote at any session unless
copies of it have been circulated to delegations not later than the day preceding the session. The President
may, however, permit the discussion and consideration of amendments to proposals or of procedural
motions even though these amendments or motions have not been circulated or have been circulated only
the same day.
2. Proposals of amendments to the Protocol, including its annexes, and of additional annexes to the Protocol
shall be communicated to the Parties by the Secretariat at least six months before the meeting at which
they were proposed for adoption.
Rule 36
1. Subject to rule 33, the following motions shall have precedence, in the order indicated below, over all
other proposals or motions:
(a) To suspend a session;
(b) To adjourn a session;
(c) To adjourn the debate on the question under discussion; and
(d) For the closure of the debate on the question under discussion.
PROCEDURE
2. Permission to speak on a motion falling within (a) to (d) above shall be granted only to the proposer and,
RULES OF
in addition, to one speaker in favor of and two against the motion, after which it shall be put immediately
to the vote.
Rule 37
A proposal or motion may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before voting on it has begun, provided that
the motion has not been amended. A proposal or motion withdrawn may be reintroduced by any other Party.
Rule 38
When a proposal has been adopted or rejected, it may not be reconsidered at the same meeting, unless the
meeting, by a two-thirds majority of the Parties present and voting, decides in favor of reconsideration.
Permission to speak on a motion to reconsider shall be accorded only to the mover and one other supporter, after
which it shall be put immediately to the vote.
Voting
Rule 39
1. Except as provided for in paragraph 2 of this rule, each Party shall have one vote.
2. Regional economic integration organizations, in matters within their competence, shall exercise their right
to vote with a number of votes equal to the number of their member States which are Parties. Such
organizations shall not exercise their right to vote if their member States exercise theirs, and vice versa.
Rule 40
1. Unless otherwise provided by the Convention or by the Protocol, decisions of a meeting on all matters of
substance shall be taken by a two-thirds majority vote of the Parties present and voting, except as
otherwise provided in the Terms of Reference for the administration of the Trust Fund.
681
2. Decisions of a meeting on matters of procedure shall be taken by a simple majority vote of the Parties
present and voting.
3. If the question arises whether a matter is one of procedural or substantive nature, the President shall rule
on the question. An appeal against this ruling shall be put to the vote immediately and the President’s
ruling shall stand unless overruled by a majority of the Parties present and voting.
4. If on matters other than elections a vote is equally divided, a second vote shall be taken. If this vote is also
equally divided, the proposal shall be regarded as rejected.
5. For the purposes of these rules, the phrase “Parties present and voting” means Parties present at the
session at which voting takes place and casting an affirmative or negative vote. Parties abstaining from
voting shall be considered as not voting.
Rule 41
If two or more proposals relate to the same question, the meeting, unless it decides otherwise, shall vote on the
proposals in the order in which they have been submitted. The meeting may, after each vote on a proposal,
decide whether to vote on the next proposal.
Rule 42
Any representative may request that any parts of a proposal or of an amendment to a proposal be voted on
separately. If objection is made to the request for division, the President shall permit two representatives to
speak, one in favor of and the other against the motion, after which shall be put immediately to the vote.
Rule 43
PROCEDURE
RULES OF
If the motion referred to in rule 42 is adopted, those parts of a proposal or of an amendment to a proposal which
have been approved shall then be put to the vote as a whole. If all the operative parts of a proposal or amendment
have been rejected the proposal or amendment shall be considered to have been rejected as a whole.
Rule 44
A motion is considered to be an amendment to a proposal if it merely adds to, deletes from, or revise parts of that
proposal. An amendment shall be voted on before the proposal to which it relates is put to the vote, and if the
amendment is adopted, the amended proposal shall then be voted on.
Rule 45
If two or more amendments are moved to a proposal, the meeting shall first vote on the amendment furthest
removed in substance from the original proposal, then on the amendment next furthest removed therefrom, and
so on, until all amendments have been put to the vote. The President shall determine the order of the voting on
the amendments under this rule.
Rule 46
Except for elections, voting shall normally be by show of hands. A roll-call vote shall be taken if one is
requested by any Party. It shall be taken in the English alphabetical order of the names of the Parties
participating in the meeting, beginning with the Party whose name is drawn by lot by the President. However, if
at any time a Party requests a secret ballot, that shall be the method of voting on the issue in question.
Rule 47
The vote of each Party participating in a roll-call vote shall be recorded in the relevant documents of the meeting.
682
Rule 48
After the President has announced the beginning of voting, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on
a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of voting. The President may permit the Parties to explain
their votes, either before or after the voting. The President may limit the time to be allowed for such
explanations. The President shall not permit the proposer of a proposal or an amendment to a proposal to explain
his vote on his own proposal or amendment, except if it has been amended.
Rule 49
All elections shall be held by secret ballot, unless otherwise decided by the meeting.
Rule 50
1. If, when one person or one delegation is to be elected, no candidate obtains in the first ballot a majority of
the votes cast by the Parties present and voting, a second ballot restricted to the two candidates obtaining
the largest number of votes shall be taken. If in the second ballot the votes are equally divided, the
President shall decide between the candidates by drawing lots.
2. In the case of a tie in the first ballot among three or more candidates obtaining the largest number of
votes, a second ballot shall be held. If a tie results among more than two candidates, the number shall be
reduced to two by lot and the balloting, restricted to them, shall continue in accordance with the
procedure set forth in paragraph 1 of this rule.
Rule 51
When two or more elective places are to be filled at one time under the same conditions, those candidates, not
PROCEDURE
exceeding the number of such places, obtaining in the first ballot the largest number of votes and a majority of
RULES OF
the votes cast by the Parties present and voting shall be deemed elected. If the number of candidates obtaining
such majority is less than the number of persons or delegations to be elected, there shall be additional ballots to
fill the remaining places, the voting being restricted to the candidates obtaining the greatest number of votes in
the previous ballot, to a number not more than twice the places remaining to be filled, provided that, after the
third inconclusive ballot, votes may be cast for any eligible person or delegation. If three such unrestricted
ballots are inconclusive, the next three ballots shall be restricted to the candidates who obtained the greatest
number of votes in the third of the unrestricted ballots, to a number not more than twice the places remaining to
be filled, and the following three ballots thereafter, shall be unrestricted, and so on until all the places have been
filled.
Languages
Rule 52
The Official languages of the meeting shall be Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.
Rule 53
1. Statements made in an official language of the meeting shall be interpreted in the official languages.
2. A representative may speak in a language other than an official language of the meeting, if he provides
for interpretation into one such official language.
Rule 54
Official documents of the meetings shall be drawn up in one of the official languages and translated into the
other official languages.
683
Sound records of the meeting

Rule 55
Sound records of the meeting, and whenever possible of its committees and working groups, shall be kept by the
Secretariat in accordance with the practice of the United Nations.
Ad hoc meetings
Rule 56
1. A meeting may recommend to the Secretariat, taking duly into account the financial implications, the
convening of Ad Hoc meetings, either of representatives of the Parties or of experts nominated by the
Parties, in order to deal with matters which, because of their specialized nature, or for other reasons,
cannot be adequately discussed during the normal session of a meeting.
2. The terms of reference of these Ad Hoc meetings and the questions to be discussed shall be determined by
a meeting.
3. Unless otherwise decided by the meeting, each Ad Hoc meeting shall elect its own officers.
4. These rules of procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to such Ad Hoc meetings.
Amendments to rules of procedure

Rule 57
PROCEDURE
RULES OF
1. These rules of procedure may be amended by consensus by a meeting of the Parties.
2. Paragraph 1 of this rule shall likewise apply in case the meeting of the Parties deletes an existing rule of
procedure or adopts a new rule of procedure.
Overriding authority of the Convention or the Protocol

Rule 58
1. In the event of any conflict between any provision of these rules and any provision of the Convention, the
Convention shall prevail.
2. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of these rules and any provision of the Protocol, the
Protocol shall prevail.
684
Section 5
The Evolution of the

Montreal Protocol
Section 5.1
Introduction to the Montreal Protocol, its
adjustments and amendments
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was agreed on 16 September 1987 and
entered into force on 1 January 1989.
The Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh and Nineteenth Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
adopted, in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol,
certain adjustments and reductions of production and consumption of the controlled substances listed in the
Annexes of the Protocol. These adjustments entered into force, for all the Parties, on 7 March 1991, 23
September 1993, 5 August 1996, 4 June 1998, 28 July 2000 and 14 May 2008, respectively.
The Second, Fourth, Ninth and Eleventh Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adopted, in accordance
with the procedure laid down in paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Vienna Convention, four Amendments to the
Protocol – the “London Amendment” (1990), the “Copenhagen Amendment” (1992), the “Montreal
Amendment” (1997) and the “Beijing Amendment” (1999).
The London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments entered into force, only for those Parties which
ratified the particular amendments, on 10 August 1992, 14 June 1994, 10 November 1999 and 25 February
2002, respectively.
Sections 5.2–5.7 of the Handbook reproduce texts relevant to those interested in the evolution of the Montreal
Protocol, and also to those Parties which have ratified the Protocol but not all of the amendments:
5.2 The Montreal Protocol as agreed in 1987.
5.3 The adjustments to the Montreal Protocol as agreed at the Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth,
Eleventh and Nineteenth Meetings of the Parties (London, 27–29 June 1990; Copenhagen, 23–
25 November 1992; Vienna, 5–7 December 1995; Montreal, 15–17 September 1997; Beijing,
THE PROTOCOL
EVOLUTION OF
29 November – 3 December 1999; Montreal, 17–21 September 2007). The adjustments entered
into force on the expiry of six months from the date of circulation of the communication by the
Depositary (7 March 1991, 23 September 1993, 5 August 1996, 4 June 1998, 28 July 2000 and
14 May 2008, respectively).
5.4 The amendment to the Montreal Protocol agreed at the Second Meeting of the Parties (London,
27–29 June 1990). The London Amendment entered into force on 10 August 1992.
5.5 The amendment to the Montreal Protocol agreed at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties
(Copenhagen, 23–25 November 1992). The Copenhagen Amendment entered into force on 14
June 1994.
5.6 The amendment to the Montreal Protocol agreed at the Ninth Meeting of the Parties (Montreal,
15–17 September 1997). The Montreal Amendment entered into force on 10 November 1999.
5.7 The amendment to the Montreal Protocol agreed at the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties
(Beijing, 29 November – 3 December 1999). The Beijing Amendment entered into force on 25
February 2002.
687
Section 5.2
The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer
Preamble
The Parties to this Protocol,
Being Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer,
Mindful of their obligation under that Convention to take appropriate measures to protect human health and the
environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely
to modify the ozone layer,
Recognizing that world-wide emissions of certain substances can significantly deplete and otherwise modify the
ozone layer in a manner that is likely to result in adverse effects on human health and the environment,
Conscious of the potential climatic effects of emissions of these substances,
Aware that measures taken to protect the ozone layer from depletion should be based on relevant scientific
knowledge, taking into account technical and economic considerations,
Determined to protect the ozone layer by taking precautionary measures to control equitably total global
emissions of substances that deplete it, with the ultimate objective of their elimination on the basis of
developments in scientific knowledge, taking into account technical and economic considerations,
Acknowledging that special provision is required to meet the needs of developing countries for these substances,
Noting the precautionary measures for controlling emissions of certain chlorofluorocarbons that have already
been taken at national and regional levels,
PROTOCOL (1987)
MONTREAL
Considering the importance of promoting international co-operation in the research and development of science
and technology relating to the control and reduction of emissions of substances that deplete the ozone layer,
bearing in mind in particular the needs of developing countries,
HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
For the purposes of this Protocol:
1985.
2. “Parties” means, unless the text otherwise indicates, Parties to this Protocol.
3. “Secretariat” means the Secretariat of the Convention.
4. “Controlled substance” means a substance listed in Annex A to this Protocol, whether existing alone or in
a mixture. It excludes, however, any such substance or mixture which is in a manufactured product other
than a container used for the transportation or storage of the substance listed.
688
Section 5.2 The 1987 Montreal Protocol
technologies to be approved by the Parties.
6. “Consumption” means production plus imports minus exports of controlled substances.
7. “Calculated levels” of production, imports, exports and consumption means levels determined in
accordance with Article 3.
8. “Industrial rationalization” means the transfer of all or a portion of the calculated level of production of
one Party to another, for the purpose of achieving economic efficiencies or responding to anticipated
shortfalls in supply as a result of plant closures.
Article 2: Control Measures
1. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on the first day of the Seventh
month following the date of entry into force of this Protocol, and in each twelve-month period thereafter,
its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A does not exceed
its calculated level of consumption in 1986. By the end of the same period, each Party producing one or
more of these substances shall ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not
exceed its calculated level of production in 1986, except that such level may have increased by no more
than ten per cent based on the 1986 level. Such increase shall be permitted only so as to satisfy the basic
domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization
between Parties.
2. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on the first day of the thirty-
seventh month following the date of entry into force of this Protocol, and in each twelve-month period
thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances listed in Group II of Annex A
does not exceed its calculated level of consumption in 1986. Each Party producing one or more of these
substances shall ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed its
calculated level of production in 1986, except that such levels may have increased by no more than ten
per cent based on the 1986 level. Such increase shall be permitted only so as to satisfy the basic domestic
needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization between
Parties. The mechanisms for implementing these measures shall be decided by the Parties at their first
meeting following the first scientific review.
PROTOCOL (1987)
MONTREAL
3. Each Party shall ensure that for the period I July 1993 to 30 June 1994, and in each twelve-month period
thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A does
not exceed, annually, eighty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1986. Each Party producing
one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production
of the substances does not exceed, annually, eighty per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986.
Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization between Parties, its calculated level of
4. Each Party shall ensure that for the period I July 1998 to 30 June 1999, and in each twelve-month period
thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A does
not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1986. Each Party producing
one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production
of the substances does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986.
Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization between Parties, its calculated level of
production may exceed that limit by up to fifteen per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986.
This paragraph will apply unless the Parties decide otherwise at a meeting by a two-thirds majority of
Parties present and voting, representing at least two-thirds of the total calculated level of consumption of
these substances of the Parties. This decision shall be considered and made in the light of the assessments
referred to in Article 6.
689
5. Any Party whose calculated level of production in 1986 of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex
A was less than twenty-five kilotonnes may, for the purposes of industrial rationalization, transfer to or
receive from any other Party, production in excess of the limits set out in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 provided
that the total combined calculated levels of production of the Parties concerned does not exceed the
production limits set out in this Article. Any transfer of such production shall be notified to the
secretariat, no later than the time of the transfer.
6. Any Party not operating under Article 5, that has facilities for the production of controlled substances
under construction, or contracted for, prior to 16 September 1987, and provided for in national legislation
prior to 1 January 1987, may add the production from such facilities to its 1986 production of such
substances for the purposes of determining its calculated level of production for 1986, provided that such
facilities are completed by 31 December 1990 and that such production does not raise that Party’s annual
calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances above 0.5 kilograms per capita.
7. Any transfer of production pursuant to paragraph 5 or any addition of production pursuant to paragraph 6
shall be notified to the Secretariat, no later than the time of the transfer or addition.
8. (a) Any Parties which are Member States of a regional economic integration organization as defined in
Article 1 (6) of the Convention may agree that they shall jointly fulfil their obligations respecting
consumption under this Article provided that their total combined calculated level of consumption
does not exceed the levels required by this Article.
(b) The Parties to any such agreement shall inform the Secretariat of the terms of the agreement before
the date of the reduction in consumption with which the agreement is concerned.
(c) Such agreement will become operative only if all Member States of the regional economic
integration organization and the organization concerned are Parties to the Protocol and have notified
the Secretariat of their manner of implementation.
9. (a) Based on the assessments made pursuant to Article 6, the Parties may decide whether:
(i) Adjustments to the ozone depleting potentials specified in Annex A should be made and, if so,
what the adjustments should be; and
PROTOCOL (1987)
(ii) Further adjustments and reductions of production or consumption of the controlled substances
MONTREAL
from 1986 levels should be undertaken and, if so, what the scope, amount and timing of any
such adjustments and reductions should be;
(b) Proposals for such adjustments shall be communicated to the Parties by the Secretariat at least six
months before the meeting of the Parties at which they are proposed for adoption;
(c) In taking such decisions, the Parties shall make every effort to reach agreement by consensus. If all
efforts at consensus have been exhausted, and no agreement reached, such decisions shall, as a last
resort, be adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of the Parties present and voting representing at
least fifty per cent of the total consumption of the controlled substances of the Parties;
(d) The decisions, which shall be binding on all Parties, shall forthwith be communicated to the Parties
by the Depositary. Unless otherwise provided in the decisions, they shall enter into force on the
expiry of six months from the date of the circulation of the communication by the Depositary.
10. (a) Based on the assessments made pursuant to Article 6 of this Protocol and in accordance with the
procedure set out in Article 9 of the Convention, the Parties may decide:
(i) whether any substances, and if so which, should be added to or removed from any annex to this
Protocol, and
(ii) the mechanism, scope and timing of the control measures that should apply to those
substances;
690
(b) Any such decisions shall become effective, provided that it has been accepted by a two-thirds
majority vote of the Parties present and voting.
11. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in this Article, Parties may take more stringent measures than
those required by this Article.
Article 3: Calculation of control levels
For the purposes of Articles 2 and 5, each Party shall, for each group of substances in Annex A, determine its
calculated levels of:
(a) Production by:
(i) multiplying its annual production of each controlled substance by the ozone depleting potential
specified in respect of it in Annex A; and
(ii) adding together, for each such Group, the resulting figures;
(b) Imports and exports, respectively, by following, mutatis mutandis, the procedure set out in
subparagraph (a); and
(c) Consumption by adding together its calculated levels of production and imports and subtracting its
calculated level of exports as determined in accordance with subparagraphs (a) and (b). However,
beginning on 1 January 1993, any export of controlled substances to non-Parties shall not be
subtracted in calculating the consumption level of the exporting Party.
1 Within one year of the entry into force of this Protocol, each Party shall ban the import of controlled
substances from any State not party to this Protocol.
2. Beginning on 1 January 1993, no Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 may export any
controlled substance to any State not party to this Protocol.
PROTOCOL (1987)
3. Within three years of the date of entry into force of this Protocol, the Parties shall, following the
MONTREAL
procedure in Article 10 of the Convention, elaborate in an annex a list of products containing controlled
substances. Parties that have not objected to the annex in accordance with those procedures shall ban,
within one year of the annex having become effective, the import of those products from any State not
party to this Protocol.
4. Within five years of the entry into force of this Protocol, the Parties shall determine the feasibility of
banning or restricting, from States not party to this Protocol, the import of products produced with, but
not containing, controlled substances. If determined feasible, the Parties shall, following the procedures in
Article 10 of the Convention, elaborate in an annex a list of such products. Parties that have not objected
to it in accordance with those procedures shall ban or restrict, within one year of the annex having
become effective, the import of those products from any State not party to this Protocol.
5. Each Party shall discourage the export, to any State not party to this Protocol, of technology for
producing and for utilizing controlled substances.
6. Each Party shall refrain from providing new subsidies, aid, credits, guarantees or insurance programmes
for the export to States not party to this Protocol of products, equipment, plants or technology that would
facilitate the production of controlled substances.
7. Paragraphs 5 and 6 shall not apply to products, equipment, plants or technology that improve the
containment, recovery, recycling or destruction of controlled substances, promote the development of
alternative substances, or otherwise contribute to the reduction of emissions of controlled substances.
691
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, imports referred to in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 may be
permitted from any State not party to this Protocol, if that State is determined, by a meeting of the Parties,
to be in full compliance with Article 2 and this Article, and has submitted data to that effect as specified
in Article 7.
controlled substances is less than 0.3 kilograms per capita on the date of the entry into force of the
Protocol for it, or any time thereafter within ten years of the date of entry into force of the Protocol shall,
in order to meet its basic domestic needs, be entitled to delay its compliance with the control measures set
out in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 2 by ten years after that specified in those paragraphs. However, such
Party shall not exceed an annual calculated level of consumption of 0.3 kilograms per capita. Any such
Party shall be entitled to use either the average of its annual calculated level of consumption for the
period of 1995 to 1997 inclusive or a calculated level of consumption of 0.3 kilograms per capita,
whichever is the lower, as the basis for its compliance with the control measures.
2. The Parties undertake to facilitate access to environmentally safe alternative substances and technology
for Parties that are developing countries and assist them to make expeditious use of such alternatives.
3. The Parties undertake to facilitate bilaterally or multilaterally the provision of subsidies, aid, credits,
guarantees or insurance programmes to Parties that are developing countries for the use of alternative
technology and for substitute products.
Beginning in 1990, and at least every four years thereafter, the Parties shall assess the control measures provided
for in Article 2 on the basis of available scientific, environmental, technical and economic information. At least
one year before each assessment, the Parties shall convene appropriate panels of experts qualified in the fields
mentioned and determine the composition and terms of reference of any such panels. Within one year of being
convened, the panels will report their conclusions, through the Secretariat, to the Parties.

PROTOCOL (1987)
1. Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat, within three months of becoming a Party, statistical data on its
MONTREAL
production, imports and exports of each of the controlled substances for the year 1986, or the best
possible estimates of such data where actual data are not available.
2. Each Party shall provide statistical data to the secretariat on its annual production (with separate data on
amounts destroyed by technologies to be approved by the Parties), imports, and exports to Parties and
non-Parties, respectively, of such substances for the year during which it becomes a Party and for each
year thereafter. It shall forward the data no later than nine months after the end of the year to which the
data relate.
The Parties, at their first meeting, shall consider and approve procedures and institutional mechanisms for
determining non-compliance with the provisions of this Protocol and for treatment of Parties found to be in non-
compliance.

information
1. The Parties shall co-operate, consistent with their national laws, regulations and practices and taking into
account in particular the needs of developing countries, in promoting, directly or through competent
international bodies, research, development and exchange of information on:
692
(a) best technologies for improving the containment, recovery, recycling, or destruction of controlled
substances or otherwise reducing their emissions;
(b) possible alternatives to controlled substances, to products containing such substances, and to
products manufactured with them; and
(c) costs and benefits of relevant control strategies.
2. The Parties, individually, jointly or through competent international bodies, shall co-operate in promoting
public awareness of the environmental effects of the emissions of controlled substances and other
substances that deplete the ozone layer.
3. Within two years of the entry into force of this Protocol and every two years thereafter, each Party shall
submit to the Secretariat a summary of the activities it has conducted pursuant to this Article.
Article 10: Technical assistance
1. The Parties shall in the context of the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention, and taking into account
in particular the needs of developing countries, co-operate in promoting technical assistance to facilitate
participation in and implementation of this Protocol.
2. Any Party or Signatory to this Protocol may submit a request to the Secretariat for technical assistance for
the purposes of implementing or participating in the Protocol.
3. The Parties, at their first meeting, shall begin deliberations on the means of fulfilling the obligations set
out in Article 9, and paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, including the preparation of workplans. Such
workplans shall pay special attention to the needs and circumstances of the developing countries. States
and regional economic integration organizations not party to the Protocol should be encouraged to
participate in activities specified in such workplans.
Article 11: Meetings of the parties
1. The Parties shall hold meetings at regular intervals. The Secretariat shall convene the first meeting of the
Parties not later than one year after the date of the entry into force of this Protocol and in conjunction
PROTOCOL (1987)
with a meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, if a meeting of the latter is scheduled
MONTREAL
within that period.
2. Subsequent ordinary meetings of the parties shall be held, unless the Parties otherwise decide, in
conjunction with meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention. Extraordinary meetings of
the Parties shall be held at such other times as may be deemed necessary by a meeting of the Parties, or at
the written request of any Party, provided that within six months of such a request being communicated to
them by the Secretariat, it is supported by at least one third of the Parties.
3. The Parties, at their first meeting, shall:
(a) adopt by consensus rules of procedure for their meetings;
(b) adopt by consensus the financial rules referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 13;
(c) establish the panels and determine the terms of reference referred to in Article 6;
(d) consider and approve the procedures and institutional mechanisms specified in Article 8; and
(e) begin preparation of workplans pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 10.
4. The functions of the meetings of the Parties shall be to:
693
(a) review the implementation of this Protocol;
(b) decide on any adjustments or reductions referred to in paragraph 9 of Article 2;
(c) decide on any addition to, insertion in or removal from any annex of substances and on related
control measures in accordance with paragraph 10 of Article 2;
(d) establish, where necessary, guidelines or procedures for reporting of information as provided for in
Article 7 and paragraph 3 of Article 9;
(e) review requests for technical assistance submitted pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 10;
(f) review reports prepared by the secretariat pursuant to subparagraph (c) of Article 12;
(g) assess, in accordance with Article 6, the control measures provided for in Article 2;
(h) consider and adopt, as required, proposals for amendment of this Protocol or any annex and for any
new annex;
(i) consider and adopt the budget for implementing this Protocol; and
(j) consider and undertake any additional action that may be required for the achievement of the
purposes of this Protocol.
5. The United Nations, its specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as any
State not party to this Protocol, may be represented at meetings of the Parties as observers. Any body or
agency, whether national or international, governmental or non-governmental, qualified in fields relating
to the protection of the ozone layer which has informed the secretariat of its wish to be represented at a
meeting of the Parties as an observer may be admitted unless at least one third of the Parties present
object. The admission and participation of observers shall be subject to the rules of procedure adopted by
the Parties.

PROTOCOL (1987)
For the purposes of this Protocol, the Secretariat shall:

MONTREAL
(a) arrange for and service meetings of the Parties as provided for in Article 11;
(b) receive and make available, upon request by a Party, data provided pursuant to Article 7;
(c) prepare and distribute regularly to the Parties reports based on information received pursuant to
Articles 7 and 9;
(d) notify the Parties of any request for technical assistance received pursuant to Article 10 so as to
facilitate the provision of such assistance;
(e) encourage non-Parties to attend the meetings of the Parties as observers and to act in accordance
with the provisions of this Protocol;
(f) provide, as appropriate, the information and requests referred to in subparagraphs (c) and (d) to such
non-Party observers; and
(g) perform such other functions for the achievement of the purposes of this Protocol as may be
assigned to it by the Parties.
694
1. The funds required for the operation of this Protocol, including those for the functioning of the Secretariat
related to this Protocol, shall be charged exclusively against contributions from the Parties.
2. The Parties, at their first meeting, shall adopt by consensus financial rules for the operation of this
Protocol.
Except as otherwise provided in this Protocol, the provisions of the Convention relating to its protocols shall
apply to this Protocol.
Article 15: Signature
This Protocol shall be open for signature by States and by regional economic integration organizations in
Montreal on 16 September 1987, in Ottawa from 17 September 1987 to 16 January 1988, and at United Nations
Headquarters in New York from 17 January 1988 to 15 September 1988.
1. This Protocol shall enter into force on 1 January 1989, provided that at least eleven instruments of
ratification, acceptance, approval of the Protocol or accession thereto have been deposited by States or
regional economic integration organizations representing at least two-thirds of 1986 estimated global
consumption of the controlled substances, and the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the
Convention have been fulfilled. In the event that these conditions have not been fulfilled by that date, the
Protocol shall enter into force on the ninetieth day following the date on which the conditions have been
fulfilled.
3. After the entry into force of this Protocol, any State or regional economic integration organization shall
PROTOCOL (1987)
become a Party to it on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of its instrument of ratification,
MONTREAL
acceptance, approval or accession.
Article 17: Parties joining after entry into force
Subject to Article 5, any State or regional economic integration organization which becomes a Party to this
Protocol after the date of its entry into force, shall fulfil forthwith the sum of the obligations under Article 2, as
well as under Article 4, that apply at that date to the States and regional economic integration organizations that
became Parties on the date the Protocol entered into force.
Article 18: Reservations
No reservations may be made to this Protocol.
For the purposes of this Protocol, the provisions of Article 19 of the Convention relating to withdrawal shall
apply, except with respect to Parties referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 5. Any such Party may withdraw from
this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary at any time after four years of assuming the
obligations specified in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one
year after the date of its receipt by the Depositary, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of
the withdrawal.
695
Article 20: Authentic texts
The original of this Protocol, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are
equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING DULY AUTHORIZED TO THAT EFFECT, HAVE
SIGNED THIS PROTOCOL.
DONE AT MONTREAL THIS SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
AND EIGHTY SEVEN.
Annex A: Controlled substances
Group Substance Ozone-Depleting Potential*

Group I
CFCl3 (CFC-11) 1.0
CF2Cl2 (CFC-12) 1.0
C2F3Cl3 (CFC-113) 0.8
C2F4Cl2 (CFC-114) 1.0
C2F5Cl (CFC-115) 0.6
Group II
CF2BrCl (halon-1211) 3.0
CF3Br (halon-1301) 10.0
C2F4Br2 (halon-2402) 6.0
* These ozone depleting potentials are estimates based on existing knowledge and will be reviewed and
revised periodically.
PROTOCOL (1987)
MONTREAL
696
Section 5.3
Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol
agreed by the Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh and Nineteenth

Meetings of the Parties
Adjustments agreed at the Second Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex I of the report of the Second Meeting of the Parties.
These adjustments entered into force on 7 March 1991.]
The Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
decides, on the basis of assessments made pursuant to Article 6 of the Protocol, to adopt adjustments and
reductions of production and consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A to the Protocol, as follows,
with the understanding that:
(a) References in Article 2 to “this Article” and throughout the Protocol to “Article 2” shall be interpreted as
references to Articles 2, 2A and 2B;
(b) References throughout the Protocol to “paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 2” shall be interpreted as references
to Articles 2A and 2B; and
(c) The reference in paragraph 5 of Article 2 to “paragraphs 1, 3 and 4” shall be interpreted as a reference to
Article 2A.
A. Article 2A: CFCs
Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Protocol shall become paragraph 1 of Article 2A, which shall be entitled “Article
2A: CFCs”. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 2 shall be replaced by the following paragraphs, which shall be
numbered paragraphs 2 to 6 of Article 2A:
2. Each Party shall ensure that for the period from 1 July 1991 to 31 December 1992 its calculated levels of
ADJUSTMENTS
consumption and production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A do not exceed 150 per
cent of its calculated levels of production and consumption of those substances in 1986; with effect from
1 January 1993, the twelve-month control period for these controlled substances shall run from 1 January
to 31 December each year.
I of Annex A does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1986.
calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated
I of Annex A does not exceed, annually, fifteen per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1986.
calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed, annually, fifteen per cent of its
697
Section 5.3 Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol
I of Annex A does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the
6. In 1992, the Parties will review the situation with the objective of accelerating the reduction schedule.
B. Article 2B: Halons
Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following paragraphs, which shall be numbered
paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 2B:
Article 2B: Halons

II of Annex A does not exceed, annually, its calculated level of consumption in 1986. Each Party
producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of
production of the substances does not exceed, annually, its calculated level of production in 1986.
II of Annex A does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1986.
calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated
cent of its calculated level of production in 1986. This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the
Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy essential uses
ADJUSTMENTS
for which no adequate alternatives are available.
II of Annex A does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the
level of production in 1986. This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit
the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy essential uses for which no adequate
alternatives are available.
4. By 1 January 1993, the Parties shall adopt a decision identifying essential uses, if any, for the purposes of
paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article. Such decision shall be reviewed by the Parties at their subsequent
meetings.
Adjustments agreed at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annexes I and II of the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties.
These adjustments entered into force on 23 September 1993.]
The Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer decides,
on the basis of the assessments made pursuant to Article 6 of the Protocol, to adopt adjustments and reductions
of production and consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A and Annex B to the Protocol as follows:
698
A. Article 2A: CFCs
Paragraphs 3 to 6 of Article 2A of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following paragraphs, which shall be
numbered paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 2A:
I of Annex A does not exceed, annually, twenty-five per cent of its calculated level of consumption in
twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in
Group I of Annex A does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall,
for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed zero.
the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be essential.
Paragraphs 2 to 4 of Article 2B of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following paragraph, which shall be
numbered paragraph 2 of Article 2B:
Group II of Annex A does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall,
for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed zero.
ADJUSTMENTS
C. Article 2C: Other Fully Halogenated CFCs
Article 2C of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following Article:
Article 2C: Other Fully Halogenated CFCs

level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex B does not exceed, annually,
eighty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1989. Each Party producing one or more of these
substances shall, for the same period, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does
not exceed, annually, eighty per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989. However, in order to
level of production may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production in
1989.
Group I of Annex B does not exceed, annually, twenty-five per cent of its calculated level of consumption
in 1989. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
699
I of Annex B does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the
D. Article 2D: Carbon Tetrachloride
Article 2D of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following Article:
Article 2D: Carbon Tetrachloride

level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group II of Annex B does not exceed, annually,
fifteen per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1989. Each Party producing the substance shall,
for the same period, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed,
annually, fifteen per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989. However, in order to satisfy the
II of Annex B does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods,
level of production may exceed that limit by up to fifteen per cent of its calculated level of production in
ADJUSTMENTS
E. Article 2E: 1, 1, 1- Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform)
Article 2E of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following Article:
Article 2E: 1, 1, 1- Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform)

level of consumption of the controlled substance in Group III of Annex B does not exceed, annually, its
calculated level of consumption in 1989. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same period,
ensure that its calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed, annually, its calculated
III of Annex B does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1989.
production of the substance does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of production
in 1989. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1
of Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated
700
III of Annex B does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods,
level of production may exceed that limit by up to fifteen per cent of its calculated level of production for
Adjustments agreed at the Seventh Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annexes I, II and III of the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties.
These adjustments entered into force on 5 August 1996.]
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
decides, on the basis of the assessments made pursuant to Article 6 of the Protocol, to adopt adjustments and
reductions of production and consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, Annex B, Annex C and
Annex E to the Protocol as follows:
A. Article 5: Special situation of developing countries
The following paragraph 8 bis shall be inserted after paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the Protocol:
8 bis. Based on the conclusions of the review referred to in paragraph 8 above:
(a) With respect to the controlled substances in Annex A, a Party operating under paragraph 1 of this
June 1990, and reference by the Protocol to Articles 2A and 2B shall be read accordingly;
B. Article 5: Special situation of developing countries
The following subparagraph shall be inserted after subparagraph (a) of paragraph 8 bis of Article 5 of the
Protocol:
ADJUSTMENTS
(b) With respect to the controlled substances in Annex B, a Party operating under paragraph 1 of this
June 1990, and reference by this Protocol to Articles 2C to 2E shall be read accordingly.
C. Article 2F, paragraph 1 (a): Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
In paragraph 1(a) of Article 2F, for the words:
Three point one
there shall be substituted:
Two point eight
D. Article 2F, paragraph 5: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
The following sentence shall be added to the end of paragraph 5 of Article 2F of the Protocol:
Such consumption shall, however, be restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and air conditioning
equipment existing at that date.
701
E. Article 2H: Methyl bromide
Article 2H of the Protocol shall read as follows:
Article 2H: Methyl bromide

E does not exceed, annually, its calculated level of consumption in 1991. Each Party producing the
substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substance does
not exceed, annually, its calculated level of production in 1991. However, in order to satisfy the basic
domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of production
may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production in 1991.
E does not exceed, annually, seventy-five per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1991. Each
Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of
the substance does not exceed, annually, seventy-five per cent of its calculated level of production in
1991. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
E does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1991. Each Party
substance does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of production in 1991. However,
production in 1991.
E does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
ADJUSTMENTS
calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed zero. However, in order to satisfy the
production may exceed that limit by up to fifteen per cent of its calculated level of production in 1991.
This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or
consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical agricultural uses.
5. The calculated levels of consumption and production under this Article shall not include the amounts
used by the Party for quarantine and pre-shipment applications.
F. Article 5, paragraph 8 ter: Special situation of developing countries
The following paragraph 8 ter shall be inserted after paragraph 8 bis of Article 5 of the Protocol:
8 ter. Pursuant to paragraph 1 bis above:
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, its calculated
level of consumption in 2015;
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed zero;
702
(c) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall comply with Article 2G;
(d) With regard to the controlled substance contained in Annex E:
(i) As of 1 January 2002 each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall comply with
the control measures set out in paragraph 1 of Article 2H and, as the basis for its compliance with
these control measures, it shall use the average of its annual calculated level of consumption and
production, respectively, for the period of 1995 to 1998 inclusive;
(ii) The calculated levels of consumption and production under this subparagraph shall not include
the amounts used by the Party for quarantine and pre-shipment applications.
G. Annex E: Methyl bromide
For “0.7” in the third column of Annex E substitute “0.6”.
Adjustments agreed at the Ninth Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annexes I, II and III of the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.
These adjustments entered into force on 4 June 1998.]
The Ninth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol decides to adopt, in accordance with the procedure
laid down in paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol and on the basis of the assessments made
pursuant to Article 6 of the Protocol, the adjustments with regard to production of the controlled substances
listed in Annex A, Annex B and Annex E to the Protocol as follows:
A. Article 5, paragraph 3
The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph 3 (a) of Article 5 of the Protocol:
relating to consumption
The following subparagraph shall be added to paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Protocol:
(c) For controlled substances under Annex A, either the average of its annual calculated level of production
ADJUSTMENTS
for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive or a calculated level of production of 0.3 kilograms per capita,
whichever is the lower, as the basis for determining its compliance with the control measures relating to
production.
B. Article 5, paragraph 3
The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph 3 (b) of Article 5 of the Protocol:
relating to consumption
The following subparagraph shall be added to paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Protocol:
(d) For controlled substances under Annex B, either the average of its annual calculated level of production
for the period 1998 to 2000 inclusive or a calculated level of production of 0.2 kilograms per capita,
whichever is the lower, as the basis for determining its compliance with the control measures relating to
production.
C. Article 2H: Methyl bromide
1. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of Article 2H of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following paragraphs:
twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substance in
Annex E does not exceed, annually, seventy-five per cent of its calculated level of consumption in
703
1991. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level
of production of the substance does not exceed, annually, seventy-five per cent of its calculated level
of production in 1991. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to ten
per cent of its calculated level of production in 1991.
Annex E does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1991.
production of the substance does not exceed, annually, fifty per cent of its calculated level of
production in 1991. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating
Annex E does not exceed, annually, thirty per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1991.
production of the substance does not exceed, annually, thirty per cent of its calculated level of
production in 1991. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating
5. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2005, and in
each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substance
in Annex E does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods,
ensure that its calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed zero. However, in
order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its
calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to fifteen per cent of its calculated level
of production in 1991. This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit
the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical
uses.
2. Paragraph 5 of Article 2H of the Protocol shall become paragraph 6.

ADJUSTMENTS
D. Article 5, paragraph 8 ter (d)
1. The following shall be inserted after paragraph 8 ter (d) (i) of Article 5 of the Protocol:
(ii) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month
period commencing on 1 January 2005, and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its
exceed, annually, eighty per cent of the average of its annual calculated levels of consumption
and production, respectively, for the period of 1995 to 1998 inclusive;
(iii) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month
period commencing on 1 January 2015 and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its
exceed zero. This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the
level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be
critical uses;
2. Paragraph 8 ter (d) (ii) of Article 5 of the Protocol shall become paragraph 8 ter (d) (iv).
704
Adjustments agreed at the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annexes II, III and IV of the report of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties.
These adjustments entered into force on 28 July 2000.]
A. Article 2A: CFCs
1. The third sentence of paragraph 4 of Article 2A of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following
sentence:
Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by a quantity equal to the annual
average of its production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A for basic domestic
2. The following paragraphs shall be added after paragraph 4 of Article 2A of the Protocol:
5. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2003 and in
each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of production of the controlled substances
in Group I of Annex A for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 does not exceed eighty per cent of the annual average of its production of those substances
for basic domestic needs for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive.
Article 5 does not exceed fifty per cent of the annual average of its production of those substances
Article 5 does not exceed fifteen per cent of the annual average of its production of those substances
ADJUSTMENTS
Article 5 does not exceed zero.
9. For the purposes of calculating basic domestic needs under paragraphs 4 to 8 of this Article, the
calculation of the annual average of production by a Party includes any production entitlements that
it has transferred in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 2, and excludes any production
entitlements that it has acquired in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 2.
1. The third sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 2B of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following
sentence:
Article 5, its calculated level of production may, until 1 January 2002 exceed that limit by up to
fifteen per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986; thereafter, it may exceed that limit by a
quantity equal to the annual average of its production of the controlled substances in Group II of
Annex A for basic domestic needs for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive.
2. The following paragraphs shall be added after paragraph 2 of Article 2B of the Protocol:
705
in Group II of Annex A for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 does not exceed fifty per cent of the annual average of its production of those substances
in Group II of Annex A for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
C. Article 2C: Other fully halogenated CFCs
1. The third sentence of paragraph 3 of Article 2C of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following
sentence:
quantity equal to eighty per cent of the annual average of its production of the controlled substances
in Group I of Annex B for basic domestic needs for the period 1998 to 2000 inclusive.
2. The following paragraphs shall be added after paragraph 3 of Article 2C of the Protocol:
in Group I of Annex B for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 does not exceed fifteen per cent of the annual average of its production of those substances
in Group I of Annex B for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of
ADJUSTMENTS
D. Article 2H: Methyl bromide
1. The third sentence of paragraph 5 of Article 2H of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following
sentence:
quantity equal to the annual average of its production of the controlled substance in Annex E for
basic domestic needs for the period 1995 to 1998 inclusive.
2. The following paragraphs shall be added after paragraph 5 of Article 2H of the Protocol:
5 bis. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2005 and in
each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of production of the controlled substance in
Annex E for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 does
not exceed eighty per cent of the annual average of its production of the substance for basic
domestic needs for the period 1995 to 1998 inclusive.
5 ter. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2015 and in
each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of production of the controlled substance in
Annex E for the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 does
not exceed zero.
706
Adjustments agreed by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties

[Source: Annex III of the report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties.
These adjustments entered into force on 14 May 2008.]
The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
decides to adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal
Protocol, and on the basis of assessments made pursuant to Article 6 of the Protocol, adjustments and reductions
of production and consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C to the Protocol, as follows:
A. Article 2F: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
1. The current paragraph 8 of Article 2F of the Protocol shall become paragraph 2, and the current paragraph
2 shall become paragraph 3.
2. The current paragraphs 3 to 6 shall be replaced by the following paragraphs, which shall be numbered
paragraphs 4 to 6:
each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances
in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, twenty-five per cent of the sum referred to in
paragraph 1 of this Article. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same
periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of
Annex C does not exceed, annually, twenty-five per cent of the calculated level referred to in
paragraph 2 of this Article. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by
up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of
Annex C as referred to in paragraph 2.
in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, ten per cent of the sum referred to in paragraph 1
of this Article. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods,
ensure that its calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C
does not exceed, annually, ten per cent of the calculated level referred to in paragraph 2 of this
ADJUSTMENTS
Article. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under
paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to ten per
cent of its calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C as
referred to in paragraph 2.
in Group I of Annex C does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one or more of these substances
shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the controlled substances
in Group I of Annex C does not exceed zero. However:
(a) Each Party may exceed that limit on consumption by up to zero point five per cent of the sum
referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article in any such twelve-month period ending before 1
January 2030, provided that such consumption shall be restricted to the servicing of
refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment existing on 1 January 2020;
(b) Each Party may exceed that limit on production by up to zero point five per cent of the average
referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article in any such twelve-month period ending before 1
January 2030, provided that such production shall be restricted to the servicing of refrigeration
and air-conditioning equipment existing on 1 January 2020.
707
B. Article 5: Special situation of developing countries
3. The current sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 8 ter of Article 5 shall be replaced by the following
sub-paragraphs, which shall become sub-paragraphs (a) to (e):
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, the
average of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 2010. Each Party operating under
paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January
2013 and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of production of the controlled
substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, the average of its calculated levels of
production in 2009 and 2010;
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, ninety
per cent of the average of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 2010. Each such Party
producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated
level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually,
ninety per cent of the average of its calculated levels of production in 2009 and 2010;
(c) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, sixty-
five per cent of the average of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 2010. Each such
annually, sixty-five per cent of the average of its calculated levels of production in 2009 and 2010;
(d) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, thirty-
two point five per cent of the average of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 2010. Each
such Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
ADJUSTMENTS
annually, thirty-two point five per cent of the average of its calculated levels of production in 2009
and 2010;
(e) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed zero. Each such
calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed
zero. However:
(i) Each such Party may exceed that limit on consumption in any such twelve-month period so
long as the sum of its calculated levels of consumption over the ten-year period from 1 January
2030 to 1 January 2040, divided by ten, does not exceed two point five per cent of the average
of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 2010, and provided that such consumption
shall be restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment existing on 1
January 2030;
(ii) Each such Party may exceed that limit on production in any such twelve-month period so long
as the sum of its calculated levels of production over the ten-year period from 1 January 2030
to 1 January 2040, divided by ten, does not exceed two point five per cent of the average of its
calculated levels of production in 2009 and 2010, and provided that such production shall be
708
restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment existing on 1 January

2030.
4. The current sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of paragraph 8 ter of Article 5 shall become sub-paragraphs (f)
and (g).
ADJUSTMENTS
709
Section 5.4
The London Amendment (1990)
The amendment to the Montreal Protocol agreed by the Second Meeting of

the Parties (London, 27–29 June 1990)
[Source: Annex II of the report of the Second Meeting of the Parties.

The amendment entered into force on 10 August 1992.]
Article 1: Amendment
A. Preambular paragraphs
1. The 6th preambular paragraph of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following:
Determined to protect the ozone layer by taking precautionary measures to control equitably total
global emissions of substances that deplete it, with the ultimate objective of their elimination on the
basis of developments in scientific knowledge, taking into account technical and economic
considerations and bearing in mind the developmental needs of developing countries,
Acknowledging that special provision is required to meet the needs of developing countries,
including the provision of additional financial resources and access to relevant technologies, bearing
in mind that the magnitude of funds necessary is predictable, and the funds can be expected to make
a substantial difference in the world’s ability to address the scientifically established problem of
ozone depletion and its harmful effects,
Considering the importance of promoting international co-operation in the research, development

AMENDMENT
and transfer of alternative technologies relating to the control and reduction of emissions of
LONDON
substances that deplete the ozone layer, bearing in mind in particular the needs of developing
countries,
B. Article 1: Definitions
1. Paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following paragraph:
4. “Controlled substance” means a substance in Annex A or in Annex B to this Protocol, whether

existing alone or in a mixture. It includes the isomers of any such substance, except as specified in
the relevant Annex, but excludes any controlled substance or mixture which is in a manufactured
product other than a container used for the transportation or storage of that substance.
technologies to be approved by the Parties and minus the amount entirely used as feedstock in the
manufacture of other chemicals. The amount recycled and reused is not to be considered as
“production”.
3. The following paragraph shall be added to Article 1 of the Protocol:
710
Section 5.4 The London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol (1990)
9. “Transitional substance” means a substance in Annex C to this Protocol, whether existing alone or
in a mixture. It includes the isomers of any such substance, except as may be specified in Annex C,
but excludes any transitional substance or mixture which is in a manufactured product other than a
container used for the transportation or storage of that substance.
C. Article 2, paragraph 5
Paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following paragraph:
5. Any Party may, for any one or more control periods, transfer to another Party any portion of its
calculated level of production set out in Articles 2A to 2E, provided that the total combined
calculated levels of production of the Parties concerned for any group of controlled substances do
not exceed the production limits set out in those Articles for that group. Such transfer of production
shall be notified to the Secretariat by each of the Parties concerned, stating the terms of such transfer
and the period for which it is to apply.
D. Article 2, paragraph 6
The following words shall be inserted in paragraph 6 of Article 2 before the words “controlled
substances” the first time they occur:
Annex A or Annex B
E. Article 2, paragraph 8 (a)
The following words shall be added after the words “this Article” wherever they appear in paragraph 8 (a)
of Article 2 of the Protocol:
and Articles 2A to 2E
F. Article 2, paragraph 9 (a) (i)
The following words shall be added after “Annex A” in paragraph 9 (a) (i) of Article 2 of the Protocol:
and/or Annex B
AMENDMENT
LONDON
G. Article 2, paragraph 9 (a) (ii)
The following words shall be deleted from paragraph 9 (a) (ii) of Article 2 of the Protocol:
from 1986 levels
H. Article 2, paragraph 9 (c)
The following words shall be deleted from paragraph 9 (c) of Article 2 of the Protocol:
representing at least fifty per cent of the total consumption of the controlled substances of the Parties
and replaced by:
representing a majority of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 present and voting
and a majority of the Parties not so operating present and voting
I. Article 2, paragraph 10 (b)
Paragraph 10 (b) of Article 2 of the Protocol shall be deleted, and paragraph 10 (a) of Article 2 shall
become paragraph 10.
711
J. Article 2, paragraph 11
The following words shall be added after the words “this Article” wherever they occur in paragraph 11 of
Article 2 of the Protocol:
and Articles 2A to 2E
K. Article 2C: Other fully halogenated CFCs
The following paragraphs shall be added to the Protocol as Article 2C:
Article 2C: Other fully halogenated CFCs

in Group I of Annex B does not exceed, annually, eighty per cent of its calculated level of
consumption in 1989. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same
periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed, annually,
eighty per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989. However, in order to/satisfy the basic
domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph/1 of Article 5, its calculated level of
in Group I of Annex B does not exceed, annually, fifteen per cent of its calculated level of
consumption in 1989. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same
periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed, annually,
fifteen per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989. However, in order to/satisfy the basic
domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of
in Group I of Annex B does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one or more of these substances
shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not
AMENDMENT
exceed zero. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under
LONDON
paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to fifteen per
L. Article 2D: Carbon tetrachloride
The following paragraphs shall be added to the Protocol as Article 2D:
Article 2D: Carbon tetrachloride

in Group II of Annex B does not exceed, annually, fifteen per cent of its calculated level of
consumption in 1989. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed, annually, fifteen per cent of its
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that
limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989.
in Group II of Annex B does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the
same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed zero.
712
Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to fifteen per cent of its
calculated level of production in 1989.
M. Article 2E: 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
The following paragraphs shall be added to the Protocol as Article 2E:
Article 2E: 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)

in Group III of Annex B does not exceed, annually, its calculated level of consumption in 1989.
production of the substance does not exceed, annually, its calculated level of production in 1989.
Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its
in Group III of Annex B does not exceed, annually, seventy per cent of its calculated level of
calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed, annually, seventy per cent of its
calculated level of consumption in 1989. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of
the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed
that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989.
in Group III of Annex B does not exceed, annually, thirty per cent of its calculated level of
calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed, annually, thirty per cent of its
calculated level of production in 1989. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of
Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that
limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989.
AMENDMENT
LONDON
in Group III of Annex B does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the substance shall, for the
same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed zero.
Article 5, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by up to fifteen per cent of its
5. The Parties shall review, in 1992, the feasibility of a more rapid schedule of reductions than that set
out in this Article.
N. Article 3: Calculation of control levels
1. The following shall be added after “Articles 2” in Article 3 of the Protocol:
, 2A to 2E,
2. The following words shall be added after “Annex A” each time it appears in Article 3 of the Protocol:
or Annex B
713
O. Article 4: Control of trade with non-Parties
1. Paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 shall be replaced by the following paragraphs:
1. As of 1 January 1990, each Party shall ban the import of the controlled substances in Annex A from
any State not party to this Protocol.
1 bis Within one year of the date of the entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the import
of the controlled substances in Annex B from any State not party to this Protocol.
2. As of 1 January 1993, each Party shall ban the export of any controlled substances in Annex A to
any State not party to this Protocol.
2 bis Commencing one year after the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the
export of any controlled substances in Annex B to any State not party to this Protocol.
3. By 1 January 1992, the Parties shall, following the procedures in Article 10 of the Convention,
elaborate in an annex a list of products containing controlled substances in Annex A. Parties that
have not objected to the annex in accordance with those procedures shall ban, within one year of the
annex having become effective, the import of those products from any State not party to this
Protocol.
3 bis Within three years of the date of the entry into force of this paragraph, the Parties shall, following
the procedures in Article 10 of the Convention, elaborate in an annex a list of products containing
controlled substances in Annex B. Parties that have not objected to the annex in accordance with
those procedures shall ban, within one year of the annex having become effective, the import of
those products from any State not party to this Protocol.
4. By 1 January 1994, the Parties shall determine the feasibility of banning or restricting, from States
not party to this Protocol, the import of products produced with, but not containing, controlled
substances in Annex A. If determined feasible, the Parties shall, following the procedures in Article
10 of the Convention, elaborate in an annex a list of such products. Parties that have not objected to
the annex in accordance with those procedures shall ban or restrict, within one year of the annex
having become effective, the import of those products from any State not party to this Protocol.
AMENDMENT
4 bis Within five years of the date of the entry into force of this paragraph, the Parties shall determine the
LONDON
produced with, but not containing, controlled substances in Annex B. If determined feasible, the
Parties shall, following the procedures in Article 10 of the Convention, elaborate in an annex a list
of such products. Parties that have not objected to the annex in accordance with those procedures
shall ban or restrict, within one year of the annex having become effective, the import of those
products from any State not party to this Protocol.
5. Each Party undertakes to the fullest practicable extent to discourage the export to any State not party
to this Protocol of technology for producing and for utilizing controlled substances.
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, imports referred to in paragraphs 1, 1 bis, 3, 3 bis, 4
and 4 bis, and exports referred to in paragraphs 2 and 2 bis, may be permitted from, or to, any State
not party to this Protocol, if that State is determined by a meeting of the Parties to be in full
compliance with Article 2, Articles 2A to 2E, and this Article and have submitted data to that effect
as specified in Article 7.
3. The following paragraph shall be added to Article 4 of the Protocol as paragraph 9:
714
9. For the purposes of this Article, the term “State not party to this Protocol” shall include, with respect
to a particular controlled substance, a State or regional economic integration organization that has
not agreed to be bound by the control measures in effect for that substance.
P. Article 5: Special situation of developing countries
Article 5 of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following:
controlled substances in Annex A is less than 0.3 kilograms per capita on the date of the entry into
force of the Protocol for it, or any time thereafter until 1 January 1999, shall in order to meet its
basic domestic needs, be entitled to delay for ten years its compliance with the control measures set
out in Articles 2A to 2E.
2. However, any Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall exceed neither an annual
calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A of 0.3 kilograms per capita
nor an annual calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances of Annex B of 0.2
kilograms per capita.
3. When implementing the control measures set out in Articles 2A to 2E, any Party operating under
paragraph 1 of this Article shall be entitled to use:
(a) For controlled substances under Annex A, either the average of its annual calculated level of
kilograms per capita, whichever is the lower, as the basis for determining its compliance with
the control measures;
(b) For controlled substances under Annex B, the average of its annual calculated level of
kilograms per capita, whichever is the lower, as the basis for determining its compliance with
the control measures.
4. If a Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article, at any time before the control measures
obligations in Articles 2A to 2E become applicable to it, finds itself unable to obtain an adequate
supply of controlled substances, it may notify this to the Secretariat. The Secretariat shall forthwith
AMENDMENT
transmit a copy of such notification to the Parties, which shall consider the matter at their next
LONDON
Meeting, and decide upon appropriate action to be taken.
5. Developing the capacity to fulfil the obligations of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of this
Article to comply with the control measures set out in Articles 2A to 2E and their implementation by
those same Parties will depend upon the effective implementation of the financial co-operation as
provided by Article 10 and transfer of technology as provided by Article 10A.
6. Any Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article may, at any time, notify the Secretariat in
writing that, having taken all practicable steps it is unable to implement any or all of the obligations
laid down in Articles 2A to 2E due to the inadequate implementation of Articles 10 and 10A. The
Secretariat shall forthwith transmit a copy of the notification to the Parties, which shall consider the
matter at their next Meeting, giving due recognition to paragraph 5 of this Article and shall decide
upon appropriate action to be taken.
7. During the period between notification and the Meeting of the Parties at which the appropriate
action referred to in paragraph 6 above is to be decided, or for a further period if the Meeting of the
Parties so decides, the non-compliance procedures referred to in Article 8 shall not be invoked
against the notifying Party.
8. A Meeting of the Parties shall review, not later than 1995, the situation of the Parties operating
under paragraph 1 of this Article, including the effective implementation of financial co-operation
715
and transfer of technology to them, and adopt such revisions that may be deemed necessary
regarding the schedule of control measures applicable to those Parties.
9. Decisions of the Parties referred to in paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of this Article shall be taken according
to the same procedure applied to decision-making under Article 10.
Q. Article 6: Assessment and review of control measures
The following words shall be added after “Article 2” in Article 6 of the Protocol:
Articles 2A to 2E, and the situation regarding production, imports and exports of the transitional
substances in Group I of Annex C
R. Article 7: Reporting of data
1. Article 7 of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following:
1. Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat, within three months of becoming a Party, statistical data
on its production, imports and exports of each of the controlled substances in Annex A for the year
1986, or the best possible estimates of such data where actual data are not available.
2. Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat statistical data on its production, imports and exports of
each of the controlled substances in Annex B and each of the transitional substances in Group I of
Annex C, for the year 1989, or the best possible estimates of such data where actual data are not
available, not later than three months after the date when the provisions set out in the Protocol with
regard to the substances in Annex B enter into force for that Party.
3. Each Party shall provide statistical data to the Secretariat on its annual production (as defined in
paragraph 5 of Article 1), and, separately,
– amounts used for feedstocks,
– amounts destroyed by technologies approved by the Parties,
– imports and exports to Parties and non-Parties respectively,

AMENDMENT
LONDON
of each of the controlled substances listed in Annexes A and B as well as of the transitional
substances in Group I of Annex C, for the year during which provisions concerning the substances
in Annex B entered into force for that Party and for each year thereafter. Data shall be forwarded not
later than nine months after the end of the year to which the data relate.
4. For Parties operating under the provisions of paragraph 8 (a) of Article 2, the requirements in
paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article in respect of statistical data on imports and exports shall be
satisfied if the regional economic integration organization concerned provides data on imports and
exports between the organization and States that are not members of that organization.
S. Article 9: Research, development, public awareness and exchange of information
Paragraph 1 (a) of Article 9 of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following:
(a) Best technologies for improving the containment, recovery, recycling, or destruction of controlled
and transitional substances or otherwise reducing their emissions;
T. Article 10: Financial mechanism
Article 10 of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following:
716

1. The Parties shall establish a mechanism for the purposes of providing financial and technical co-
operation, including the transfer of technologies, to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
of this Protocol to enable their compliance with the control measures set out in Articles 2A to 2E of
the Protocol. The mechanism, contributions to which shall be additional to other financial transfers
to Parties operating under that paragraph, shall meet all agreed incremental costs of such Parties in
order to enable their compliance with the control measures of the Protocol. An indicative list of the
categories of incremental costs shall be decided by the meeting of the Parties.
2. The mechanism established under paragraph 1 shall include a Multilateral Fund. It may also include
other means of multilateral, regional and bilateral co-operation.
(a) Meet, on a grant or concessional basis as appropriate, and according to criteria to be decided
upon by the Parties, the agreed incremental costs;
(b) Finance clearing-house functions to:
(i) Assist Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, through country specific studies
and other technical co-operation, to identify their needs for co-operation;
(ii) Facilitate technical co-operation to meet these identified needs;
(iii) Distribute, as provided for in Article 9, information and relevant materials, and hold
workshops, training sessions, and other related activities, for the benefit of Parties that are
developing countries; and
(iv) Facilitate and monitor other multilateral, regional and bilateral co-operation available to
Parties that are developing countries;
(c) Finance the secretarial services of the Multilateral Fund and related support costs.
AMENDMENT
policies.
LONDON
5. The Parties shall establish an Executive Committee to develop and monitor the implementation of
specific operational policies, guidelines and administrative arrangements, including the
disbursement of resources, for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the Multilateral Fund. The
Executive Committee shall discharge its tasks and responsibilities, specified in its terms of reference
as agreed by the Parties, with the co-operation and assistance of the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), the United Nations Environment Programme, the
United Nations Development Programme or other appropriate agencies depending on their
respective areas of expertise. The members of the Executive Committee, which shall be selected on
the basis of a balanced representation of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and of
the Parties not so operating, shall be endorsed by the Parties.
6. The Multilateral Fund shall be financed by contributions from Parties not operating under paragraph
1 of Article 5 in convertible currency or, in certain circumstances, in kind and/or in national
currency, on the basis of the United Nations scale of assessments. Contributions by other Parties
shall be encouraged. Bilateral and, in particular cases agreed by a decision of the Parties, regional
co-operation may, up to a percentage and consistent with any criteria to be specified by decision of
the Parties, be considered as a contribution to the Multilateral Fund, provided that such co-operation,
as a minimum:
(a) Strictly relates to compliance with the provisions of this Protocol;
717
(b) Provides additional resources; and
(c) Meets agreed incremental costs.
7. The Parties shall decide upon the programme budget of the Multilateral Fund for each fiscal period
and upon the percentage of contributions of the individual Parties thereto.
8. Resources under the Multilateral Fund shall be disbursed with the concurrence of the beneficiary
Party.
9. Decisions by the Parties under this Article shall be taken by consensus whenever possible. If all
efforts at consensus have been exhausted and no agreement reached, decisions shall be adopted by a
two-thirds majority vote of the Parties present and voting, representing a majority of the Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 present and voting and a majority of the Parties not so
operating present and voting.
10. The financial mechanism set out in this Article is without prejudice to any future arrangements that
may be developed with respect to other environmental issues.
U. Article 10A: Transfer of technology
The following Article shall be added to the Protocol as Article 10A:

Each Party shall take every practicable step, consistent with the programmes supported by the
financial mechanism, to ensure:
(a) That the best available, environmentally safe substitutes and related technologies are
expeditiously transferred to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5; and
(b) That the transfers referred to in subparagraph (a) occur under fair and most favourable
conditions.
V. Article 11: Meetings of the Parties

AMENDMENT
LONDON
Paragraph 4 (g) of Article 11 of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following:
(g) Assess, in accordance with Article 6, the control measures and the situation regarding transitional
substances;
W. Article 17: Parties joining after entry into force
The following words shall be added after “as well as under” in Article 17:
Articles 2A to 2E, and
X. Article 19: Withdrawal
Article 19 of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following paragraph:
Any Party may withdraw from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary at any
time after four years of assuming the obligations specified in paragraph 1 of Article 2A. Any such
withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year after the date of its receipt by the Depositary, or
on such later date as may be specified in the notification of the withdrawal.
718
Y. Annexes
The following annexes shall be added to the Protocol:
Annex B: Controlled substances

Group I
CF3Cl (CFC-13) 1.0
C2FCl5 (CFC-111) 1.0
C2F2Cl4 (CFC-112) 1.0
C3FCl7 (CFC-211) 1.0
C3F2Cl6 (CFC-212) 1.0
C3F3Cl5 (CFC-213) 1.0
C3F4Cl4 (CFC-214) 1.0
C3F5Cl3 (CFC-215) 1.0
C3F6Cl2 (CFC-216) 1.0
C3F7Cl (CFC-217) 1.0
Group II
CCl4 carbon tetrachloride 1.1
Group III
C2H3Cl3* 1,1,1-trichloroethane* 0.1

(methyl chloroform)
* This formula does not refer to 1,1,2-trichloroethane.
AMENDMENT
LONDON
719
Annex C: Transitional substances

Group Substance
Group I
CHFCl2 (HCFC-21)
CHF2Cl (HCFC-22)
CH2FCl (HCFC-31)
C2HFCl4 (HCFC-121)
C2HF2Cl3 (HCFC-122)
C2HF3Cl2 (HCFC-123)
C2HF4Cl (HCFC-124)
C2H2FCl3 (HCFC-131)
C2H2F2Cl2 (HCFC-132)
C2H2F3Cl (HCFC-133)
C2H3FCl2 (HCFC-141)
C2H3F2Cl (HCFC-142)
C2H4FCl (HCFC-151)
C3HFCl6 (HCFC-221)
C3HF2Cl5 (HCFC-222)
C3HF3Cl4 (HCFC-223)
C3HF4Cl3 (HCFC-224)
C3HF5Cl2 (HCFC-225)
C3HF6Cl (HCFC-226)
C3H2FCl5 (HCFC-231)
C3H2F5Cl (HCFC-235)
C3H3FCl4 (HCFC-241)
C3H3F4Cl (HCFC-244)
C3H4FCl3 (HCFC-251)
C3H4F3Cl (HCFC-253)
AMENDMENT
C3H5FCl2 (HCFC-261)
LONDON
C3H5F2Cl (HCFC-262)
C3H6FCl (HCFC-271)
1. This Amendment shall enter into force on 1 January 1992, provided that at/least twenty instruments of
ratification, acceptance or approval of the Amendment have been deposited by States or regional
economic integration organizations that are Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
the Ozone Layer. In the event that this condition has not been fulfilled by that date, the Amendment shall
enter into force on the ninetieth day following the date on which it has been fulfilled.
3. After the entry into force of this Amendment as provided under paragraph/1, it shall enter into force for
any other Party to the Protocol on/the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of its instrument of
ratification, acceptance or approval.
720
Section 5.5
The Copenhagen Amendment (1992)
The amendment to the Montreal Protocol agreed by the Fourth Meeting of

the Parties (Copenhagen, 23–25 November 1992)
[Source: Annex III of the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties.
The amendment entered into force on 14 June 1994.]
In paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the Protocol, for the words:
or in Annex B
, Annex B, Annex C or Annex E
B. Article 1, paragraph 9
Paragraph 9 of Article 1 of the Protocol shall be deleted.
C. Article 2, paragraph 5
In paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Protocol, after the words:
Articles 2A to 2E
COPENHAGEN
AMENDMENT
there shall be added:
and Article 2H
D. Article 2, paragraph 5 bis
The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Protocol:
5 bis Any Party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 may, for one or more control periods,
transfer to another such Party any portion of its calculated level of consumption set out in Article
2F, provided that the calculated level of consumption of controlled substances in Group I of
Annex A of the Party transferring the portion of its calculated level of consumption did not exceed
0.25 kilograms per capita in 1989 and that the total combined calculated levels of consumption of
the Parties concerned do not exceed the consumption limits set out in Article 2F. Such transfer of
consumption shall be notified to the Secretariat by each of the Parties concerned, stating the terms of
such transfer and the period for which it is to apply.
E. Article 2, paragraphs 8 (a) and 11
In paragraphs 8 (a) and 11 of Article 2 of the Protocol, for the words:
Articles 2A to 2E
721
Section 5.5 The Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol (1992)
there shall be substituted each time they occur:
Articles 2A to 2H
F. Article 2, paragraph 9(a)(i)
In paragraph 9(a)(i) of Article 2 of the Protocol, for the words:
and/or Annex B
, Annex B, Annex C and/or Annex E
G. Article 2F: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
The following Article shall be inserted after Article 2E of the Protocol:
Article 2F: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons

in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, the sum of:
(a) Three point one per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1989 of the controlled
substances in Group I of Annex A; and
(b) Its calculated level of consumption in 1989 of the controlled substances in Group I of
Annex C.
in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, sixty-five per cent of the sum referred to in
paragraph 1 of this Article.
COPENHAGEN
AMENDMENT
in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, thirty-five per cent of the sum referred to in
in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, ten per cent of the sum referred to in paragraph 1
of this Article.
in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, zero point five per cent of the sum referred to in
in Group I of Annex C does not exceed zero.
7. As of 1 January 1996, each Party shall endeavour to ensure that:
(a) The use of controlled substances in Group I of Annex C is limited to those applications where
other more environmentally suitable alternative substances or technologies are not available;
722
(b) The use of controlled substances in Group I of Annex C is not outside the areas of application
currently met by controlled substances in Annexes A, B and C, except in rare cases for the
protection of human life or human health; and
(c) Controlled substances in Group I of Annex C are selected for use in a manner that minimizes
ozone depletion, in addition to meeting other environmental, safety and economic
considerations.
H. Article 2G: Hydrobromofluorocarbons
The following Article shall be inserted after Article 2F of the Protocol:
Article 2G: Hydrobromofluorocarbons

Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 1996, and in
in Group II of Annex C does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the substances shall, for the
This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production
I. Article 2H: Methyl Bromide
The following Article shall be inserted after Article 2G of the Protocol:
Article 2H: Methyl Bromide

Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 1995, and in
in Annex E does not exceed, annually, its calculated level of consumption in 1991. Each Party
producing the substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of
the substance does not exceed, annually, its calculated level of production in 1991. However, in
order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its
production in 1991. The calculated levels of consumption and production under this Article shall not
include the amounts used by the Party for quarantine and pre-shipment applications.
COPENHAGEN
AMENDMENT
J. Article 3
In Article 3 of the Protocol, for the words:
2A to 2E
2A to 2H
and for the words
or Annex B
there shall be substituted each time they occur:
, Annex B, Annex C or Annex E
K. Article 4, paragraph 1 ter
The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 1 bis of Article 4 of the Protocol:
723
1 ter Within one year of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the import of
any controlled substances in Group II of Annex C from any State not party to this Protocol.
L. Article 4, paragraph 2 ter
2 ter Commencing one year after the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the
export of any controlled substances in Group II of Annex C to any State not party to this Protocol.
M. Article 4, paragraph 3 ter
3 ter.Within three years of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, the Parties shall, following the
procedures in Article 10 of the Convention, elaborate in an annex a list of products containing
controlled substances in Group II of Annex C. Parties that have not objected to the annex in
accordance with those procedures shall ban, within one year of the annex having become effective,
the import of those products from any State not party to this Protocol.
N. Article 4, paragraph 4 ter
4 ter Within five years of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, the Parties shall determine the
produced with, but not containing, controlled substances in Group II of Annex C. If determined
feasible, the Parties shall, following the procedures in Article 10 of the Convention, elaborate in an
annex a list of such products. Parties that have not objected to the annex in accordance with those
procedures shall ban or restrict, within one year of the annex having become effective, the import of
those products from any State not party to this Protocol.
O. Article 4, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7
In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Article 4 of the Protocol, for the words:

COPENHAGEN
AMENDMENT
controlled substances
controlled substances in Annexes A and B and Group II of Annex C
P. Article 4, paragraph 8
referred to in paragraphs 1, 1 bis, 3, 3 bis, 4 and 4 bis and exports referred to in paragraphs 2 and
2 bis
and exports referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 ter of this Article
and after the words:
Articles 2A to 2E
724
, Article 2G
Q. Article 4, paragraph 10
10. By 1 January 1996, the Parties shall consider whether to amend this Protocol in order to extend the
measures in this Article to trade in controlled substances in Group I of Annex C and in Annex E
with States not party to the Protocol.
R. Article 5, paragraph 1
The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol:
, provided that any further amendments to the adjustments or Amendments adopted at the Second
Meeting of the Parties in London, 29 June 1990, shall apply to the Parties operating under this
paragraph after the review provided for in paragraph 8 of this Article has taken place and shall be
based on the conclusions of that review.
S. Article 5, paragraph 1 bis
The following paragraph shall be added after paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol:
1 bis The Parties shall, taking into account the review referred to in paragraph 8 of this Article, the
assessments made pursuant to Article 6 and any other relevant information, decide by 1 January
1996, through the procedure set forth in paragraph 9 of Article 2:
(a) With respect to paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2F, what base year, initial levels, control schedules
and phase-out date for consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C will
apply to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of this Article;
(b) With respect to Article 2G, what phase-out date for production and consumption of the
controlled substances in Group II of Annex C will apply to Parties operating under paragraph 1
of this Article; and
COPENHAGEN
AMENDMENT
(c) With respect to Article 2H, what base year, initial levels and control schedules for consumption
and production of the controlled substance in Annex E will apply to Parties operating under
T. Article 5, paragraph 4
Articles 2A to 2E
Articles 2A to 2H
U. Article 5, paragraph 5
set out in Articles 2A to 2E
725
, and any control measures in Articles 2F to 2H that are decided pursuant to paragraph 1 bis of this
Article,
V. Article 5, paragraph 6
obligations laid down in Articles 2A to 2E
, or any or all obligations in Articles 2F to 2H that are decided pursuant to paragraph 1 bis of this
Article,
W. Article 6
The following words shall be deleted from Article 6 of the Protocol:
Articles 2A to 2E, and the situation regarding production, imports and exports of the transitional
substances in Group I of Annex C
and replaced by
Articles 2A to 2H
X. Article 7, paragraphs 2 and 3
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 7 of the Protocol shall be replaced by the following:
2. Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat statistical data on its production, imports and exports of
each of the controlled substances
– in Annexes B and C, for the year 1989;
– in Annex E, for the year 1991,

COPENHAGEN
AMENDMENT
or the best possible estimates of such data where actual data are not available, not later than three
months after the date when the provisions set out in the Protocol with regard to the substances in
Annexes B, C and E respectively enter into force for that Party.
3. Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat statistical data on its annual production (as defined in
paragraph 5 of Article 1) of each of the controlled substances listed in Annexes A, B, C and E and,
separately, for each substance,
– Amounts used for feedstocks,
– Amounts destroyed by technologies approved by the Parties, and
– Imports from and exports to Parties and non-Parties respectively, for the year during which
provisions concerning the substances in Annexes A B, C and E respectively entered into force
for that Party and for each year thereafter. Data shall be forwarded not later than nine months
after the end of the year to which the data relate.
Y. Article 7, paragraph 3 bis
726
3 bis Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat separate statistical data of its annual imports and exports
of each of the controlled substances listed in Group II of Annex A and Group I of Annex C that have
been recycled.
Z. Article 7, paragraph 4
in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3
in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 3 bis
AA. Article 9, paragraph 1 (a)
The following words shall be deleted from paragraph 1 (a) of Article 9 of the Protocol:
and transitional
BB. Article 10, paragraph 1
Articles 2A to 2E
, and any control measures in Articles 2F to 2H that are decided pursuant to paragraph 1 bis of Article 5.
CC. Article 11, paragraph 4 (g)
The following words shall be deleted from paragraph 4 (g) of Article ll of the Protocol:
and the situation regarding transitional substances
COPENHAGEN
AMENDMENT
DD. Article 17
Articles 2A to 2E
Articles 2A to 2H
727
EE. Annexes
1. Annex C
The following annex shall replace Annex C of the Protocol:
Annex C: Controlled substances

Number
of Ozone-Depleting
Group I
CHFCl2 (HCFC-21)** 1 0.04
CHF2Cl (HCFC-22)** 1 0.055
CH2FCl (HCFC-31) 1 0.02
C2HFCl4 (HCFC-121) 2 0.01–0.04
C2HF2Cl3 (HCFC-122) 3 0.02–0.08
C2HF3Cl2 (HCFC-123) 3 0.02–0.06
CHCl2CF3 (HCFC-123)** – 0.02
C2HF4Cl (HCFC-124) 2 0.02–0.04
CHFClCF3 (HCFC-124)** – 0.022
C2H2FCl3 (HCFC-131) 3 0.007–0.05
C2H2F2Cl2 (HCFC-132) 4 0.008–0.05
C2H2F3Cl (HCFC-133) 3 0.02–0.06
C2H3FCl2 (HCFC-141) 3 0.005–0.07
CH3CFCl2 (HCFC-141b)** – 0.11
C2H3F2Cl (HCFC-142) 3 0.008–0.07
CH3CF2Cl (HCFC-142b)** – 0.065
C2H4FCl (HCFC-151) 2 0.003–0.005
C3HFCl6 (HCFC-221) 5 0.015–0.07
C3HF2Cl5 (HCFC-222) 9 0.01–0.09
C3HF3Cl4 (HCFC-223) 12 0.01–0.08
C3HF4Cl3 (HCFC-224) 12 0.01–0.09
C3HF5Cl2 (HCFC-225) 9 0.02–0.07
CF3CF2CHCl2 (HCFC-225ca)** – 0.025
COPENHAGEN
AMENDMENT
CF2ClCF2CHClF (HCFC-225cb)** – 0.033

C3HF6Cl (HCFC-226) 5 0.02–0.10
C3H2FCl5 (HCFC-231) 9 0.05–0.09
C3H2F2Cl4 (HCFC-232) 16 0.008–0.10
C3H2F3Cl3 (HCFC-233) 18 0.007–0.23
C3H2F4Cl2 (HCFC-234) 16 0.01–0.28
C3H2F5Cl (HCFC-235) 9 0.03–0.52
C3H3FCl4 (HCFC-241) 12 0.004–0.09
C3H3F2Cl3 (HCFC-242) 18 0.005–0.13
C3H3F3Cl2 (HCFC-243) 18 0.007–0.12
C3H3F4Cl (HCFC-244) 12 0.009–0.14
C3H4FCl3 (HCFC-251) 12 0.001–0.01
C3H4F2Cl2 (HCFC-252) 16 0.005–0.04
C3H4F3Cl (HCFC-253) 12 0.003–0.03
C3H5FCl2 (HCFC-261) 9 0.002–0.02
C3H5F2Cl (HCFC-262) 9 0.002–0.02
C3H6FCl (HCFC-271) 5 0.001–0.03
728
Number
of Ozone-Depleting
Group Substance isomers Potential
Group II
CHFBr2 1 1.00
CHF2Br (HBFC-22B1) 1 0.74
CH2FBr 1 0.73
C2HFBr4 2 0.3–0.8
C2HF2Br3 3 0.5–1.8
C2HF3Br2 3 0.4–1.6
C2HF4Br 2 0.7–1.2
C2H2FBr3 3 0.1–1.1
C2H2F2Br2 4 0.2–1.5
C2H2F3Br 3 0.7–1.6
C2H3FBr2 3 0.1–1.7
C2H3F2Br 3 0.2–1.1
C2H4FBr 2 0.07–0.1
C3HFBr6 5 0.3–1.5
C3HF2Br5 9 0.2–1.9
C3HF3Br4 12 0.3–1.8
C3HF4Br3 12 0.5–2.2
C3HF5Br2 9 0.9–2.0
C3HF6Br 5 0.7–3.3
C3H2FBr5 9 0.1–1.9
C3H2F2Br4 16 0.2–2.1
C3H2F3Br3 18 0.2–5.6
C3H2F4Br2 16 0.3–7.5
C3H2F5Br 8 0.9–1.4
C3H3FBr4 12 0.08–1.9
C3H3F2Br3 18 0.1–3.1
C3H3F3Br2 18 0.1–2.5
C3H3F4Br 12 0.3–4.4
C3H4FBr3 12 0.03–0.3
C3H4F2Br2 16 0.1–1.0
C3H4F3Br 12 0.07–0.8
COPENHAGEN
AMENDMENT
C3H5FBr2 9 0.04–0.4
C3H5F2Br 9 0.07–0.8
C3H6FBr 5 0.02–0.7
* Where a range of ODPs is indicated, the highest value in that range shall be used for the purposes of the
Protocol. The ODPs listed as a single value have been determined from calculations based on laboratory
measurements. Those listed as a range are based on estimates and are less certain. The range pertains to
an isomeric group. The upper value is the estimate of the ODP of the isomer with the highest ODP, and
the lower value is the estimate of the ODP of the isomer with the lowest ODP.
** Identifies the most commercially viable substances with ODP values listed against them to be used for the
purposes of the Protocol.
2. Annex E
The following annex shall be added to the Protocol:
Annex E: Controlled substance

Group I
CH3Br methyl bromide 0.7
729
Article 2: Relationship to the 1990 Amendment
No State or regional economic integration organization may deposit an instrument of ratification, acceptance,
approval or accession to this Amendment unless it has previously, or simultaneously, deposited such an
instrument to the Amendment adopted at the Second Meeting of the Parties in London, 29 June 1990.
1. This Amendment shall enter into force on 1 January 1994, provided that at least twenty instruments of
3. After the entry into force of this Amendment, as provided under paragraph 1, it shall enter into force for
any other Party to the Protocol on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of its instrument of
COPENHAGEN
AMENDMENT
730
Section 5.6
The Montreal Amendment (1997)
The amendment to the Montreal Protocol agreed by the Ninth Meeting of

the Parties (Montreal, 15–17 September 1997)
[Source: Annex IV of the report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties

The amendment entered into force on 10 November 1999.]
A. Article 4, paragraph 1 qua.
The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 1 ter of Article 4 of the Protocol:
1qua. Within one year of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the import of
the controlled substance in Annex E from any State not party to this Protocol.
B. Article 4, paragraph 2 qua.
The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 2 ter of Article 4 of the Protocol:
2qua. Commencing one year after the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the
export of the controlled substance in Annex E to any State not party to this Protocol.
C. Article 4, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7
In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Article 4 of the Protocol, for the words:
and Group II of Annex C
AMENDMENT
MONTREAL
, Group II of Annex C and Annex E
D. Article 4, paragraph 8
Article 2G
Articles 2G and 2H
E. Article 4A: Control of trade with Parties
The following Article shall be added to the Protocol as Article 4A:
1. Where, after the phase-out date applicable to it for a controlled substance, a Party is unable, despite
having taken all practicable steps to comply with its obligation under the Protocol, to cease
production of that substance for domestic consumption, other than for uses agreed by the Parties to
be essential, it shall ban the export of used, recycled and reclaimed quantities of that substance,
other than for the purpose of destruction.
731
Section 5.6 The Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol (1997)
2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply without prejudice to the operation of Article 11 of the
Convention and the non-compliance procedure developed under Article 8 of the Protocol.
F. Article 4B: Licensing
The following Article shall be added to the Protocol as Article 4B:
1. Each Party shall, by 1 January 2000 or within three months of the date of entry into force of this
Article for it, whichever is the later, establish and implement a system for licensing the import and
export of new, used, recycled and reclaimed controlled substances in Annexes A, B, C and E.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this Article, any Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5
which decides it is not in a position to establish and implement a system for licensing the import and
export of controlled substances in Annexes C and E, may delay taking those actions until 1 January
2005 and 1 January 2002, respectively.
3. Each Party shall, within three months of the date of introducing its licensing system, report to the
Secretariat on the establishment and operation of that system.
4. The Secretariat shall periodically prepare and circulate to all Parties a list of the Parties that have
reported to it on their licensing systems and shall forward this information to the Implementation
Committee for consideration and appropriate recommendations to the Parties.
No State or regional economic integration organization may deposit an instrument of ratification, acceptance,
approval or accession to this Amendment unless it has previously, or simultaneously, deposited such an
instrument to the Amendment adopted at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties in Copenhagen, 25 November 1992.
ratification, acceptance, approval or accession of the Amendment have been deposited by States or
regional economic integration organizations that are Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
AMENDMENT
Deplete the Ozone Layer. In the event that this condition has not been fulfilled by that date, the
MONTREAL
Amendment shall enter into force on the ninetieth day following the date on which it has been fulfilled.
ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
732
Section 5.7
The Beijing Amendment (1999)
The amendment to the Montreal Protocol agreed by the Eleventh Meeting

of the Parties (Beijing, 29 November – 3 December 1999)
[Source: Annex V of the report of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties.

The amendment entered into force on 25 February 2002.]
Articles 2A to 2E
Articles 2A to 2F
B. Article 2, paragraphs 8(a) and 11
In paragraphs 8(a) and 11 of Article 2 of the Protocol, for the words:
Articles 2A to 2H
Articles 2A to 2I
AMENDMENT
C. Article 2F, paragraph 8
BEIJING
The following paragraph shall be added after paragraph 7 of Article 2F of the Protocol:
Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, the average of:
(a) The sum of its calculated level of consumption in 1989 of the controlled substances in Group I of
Annex C and two point eight per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1989 of the
controlled substances in Group I of Annex A; and
(b) The sum of its calculated level of production in 1989 of the controlled substances in Group I of
Annex C and two point eight per cent of its calculated level of production in 1989 of the controlled
substances in Group I of Annex A.
level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C as defined above.
D. Article 2I
The following Article shall be inserted after Article 2H of the Protocol:
733
Section 5.7 The Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol (1999)
Article 2I: Bromochloromethane

Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2002, and in each
twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption and production of the controlled
substance in Group III of Annex C does not exceed zero. This paragraph will apply save to the extent that
the Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed
by them to be essential.
E. Article 3
Articles 2, 2A to 2H
Articles 2, 2A to 2I
F. Article 4, paragraphs 1 quin. and 1 sex.
The following paragraphs shall be added to Article 4 of the Protocol after paragraph 1 qua:
1 quin. As of 1 January 2004, each Party shall ban the import of the controlled substances in Group I of
Annex C from any State not party to this Protocol.
1 sex. Within one year of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the import of
the controlled substance in Group III of Annex C from any State not party to this Protocol.
G. Article 4, paragraphs 2 quin. and 2 sex.
The following paragraphs shall be added to Article 4 of the Protocol after paragraph 2 qua:
2 quin. As of 1 January 2004, each Party shall ban the export of the controlled substances in Group I of
Annex C to any State not party to this Protocol.
AMENDMENT
2 sex. Within one year of the date of entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the export of
BEIJING
the controlled substance in Group III of Annex C to any State not party to this Protocol.
H. Article 4, paragraphs 5 to 7
In paragraphs 5 to 7 of Article 4 of the Protocol, for the words:
Annexes A and B, Group II of Annex C and Annex E
Annexes A, B, C and E
I. Article 4, paragraph 8
Articles 2A to 2E, Articles 2G and 2H
Articles 2A to 2I
734
J. Article 5, paragraph 4
Articles 2A to 2H
Articles 2A to 2I
K. Article 5, paragraphs 5 and 6
In paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 5 of the Protocol, for the words:
Articles 2A to 2E
Articles 2A to 2E and Article 2I
L. Article 5, paragraph 8 ter (a)
The following sentence shall be added at the end of subparagraph 8 ter (a) of Article 5 of the Protocol:
As of 1 January 2016 each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall comply with the control
measures set out in paragraph 8 of Article 2F and, as the basis for its compliance with these control
measures, it shall use the average of its calculated levels of production and consumption in 2015;
M. Article 6
Articles 2A to 2H
AMENDMENT
BEIJING
Articles 2A to 2I
N. Article 7, paragraph 2
Annexes B and C
Annex B and Groups I and II of Annex C
O. Article 7, paragraph 3
The following sentence shall be added after the first sentence of paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Protocol:
Each Party shall provide to the Secretariat statistical data on the annual amount of the controlled
substance listed in Annex E used for quarantine and pre-shipment applications.
735
P. Article 10
Articles 2A to 2E
Articles 2A to 2E and Article 2I
Q. Article 17
Articles 2A to 2H
Articles 2A to 2I
R. Annex C
The following group shall be added to Annex C to the Protocol:
Number
of Ozone-Depleting
Group Substance isomers Potential
Group III
CH2BrCl bromochloromethane 1 0.12
No State or regional economic integration organization may deposit an instrument of ratification, acceptance or
approval of or accession to this Amendment unless it has previously, or simultaneously, deposited such an
AMENDMENT
instrument to the Amendment adopted at the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in Montreal, 17 September 1997.
BEIJING
736
Section 6
Sources of Further
Information
Sources of further information
Ozone Secretariat
Ms. Tina Birmpili

Executive Secretary
The Secretariat for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol (Ozone Secretariat)
P. O. Box 30552-00100, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254-20) 762 3885 / 762 3611
Email addresses for Ozone Secretariat:
General communications: ozoneinfo@unep.org

Executive Secretary: Tina.Birmpili@unep.org
Deputy Executive Secretary: Meg.Seki@unep.org
Senior Legal Officer: Gilbert.Bankobeza@unep.org
Senior Environmental Affairs Officer: Sophia.Mylona@unep.org
Senior Administrative & Fund Management Yassin.Ahmed@unep.org
Officer:
Programme Officer: Gerald.Mutisya@unep.org
Monitoring & Compliance Officer:
Information & Communication Officer: Dan.Tengo@unep.org
INFORMATION
SOURCES OF
739
Section 6 Sources of further information
To order publications by the Secretariat for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol
please contact the Ozone Secretariat
Ozone Secretariat Web Sites
The Ozone Secretariat web sites, http://ozone.unep.org and http://montreal-

protocol.org, play a key role in the dissemination of up-to-date information regarding
the activities of the Secretariat.
A new look was unveiled in August 2015, and content-wise the website has grown
tremendously over the years, continuing to act as a catalyst for increasing awareness
on progress towards the protection of the ozone layer. It also serves as an effective
tool for easy access to important information, including:
1 Meeting reports and other related documents from 1989 to date
2 Text of the Treaties (the Convention, the Protocol, Amendments and
Adjustments)
3 Decisions of Meetings of the Parties
4 Data reporting tools
5 Publications and press releases
6 Other relevant information for the Parties e.g.
a) Information on current and upcoming events
b) Current status of ratification of ozone treaties
c) Data on production and consumption of ozone depleting substances
The web site provides links to other relevant sites such as the Multilateral Fund Secretariat,
(http://www.multilateralfund.org), UNEP OzonAction Programme
(http://www.unep.org/ozonaction) and other United Nations Agencies and Inter-
Governmental Organizations
Multilateral Fund Secretariat United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP)
Mr. Eduardo Ganem
Chief Officer, Multilateral Fund for the Mr. Jacques Van Engel
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol Chief, Montreal Protocol Unit and Principal
1000 De La Gauchetière Street West, Suite 4100, Technical Adviser-Chemicals, Montreal Protocol
Montreal, Quebec H3B 4W5, Canada Unit, Energy & Environment Group, BDP
Tel: 1 514 282 1122 304 East 45th Street, Room FF970, New York, NY,
Email: eganem@unmfs.org 10017, USA
Tel: 1 212 906 5782
United Nations Environment Email: jacques.van.engel@undp.org
INFORMATION
SOURCES OF
Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Industrial
Ms. Shamila Nair-Bedouelle Development Organization
Head of OzonAction Branch,
(UNIDO)
OzonAction Branch
UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and
Mr. Stephan Sicars
Economics
Director, Multilateral Environmental Agreements
15 rue de Milan, 75009, France
Branch, Programme Development and Technical
Tel: +33 1 44 37 14 50
Cooperation Division, UNIDO
Email: shamila.nair-bedouelle@unep.org
Vienna International Centre, A-1400 Wien, Austria
Tel: (43 2) 6026 3782
Email: s.sicars@unido.org
740
World Bank Prof. Bonfils Safari

Physics Department
Ms. Karin Shepardson College of Science and Technology
Programme Manager, Environment Department, University of Rwanda
The World Bank P. O. Box 3900
1818 H. Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA Kigali Rwanda
Tel: +1 202 458 1398 Tel: (+250) 788 508 689
Email: Kshepardson@worldbank.org Email: bonfissafari@gmail.com
Global Environment Facility (GEF) Environmental Effects

Assessment Panel Co-chairs
Mr. Ibrahima Sow
Cluster Coordinator Chemicals Prof. Janet F. Bornman
Mail stop: P 4-400 | 1818 H Street NW, Director, International Institute of Agri-Food
Washington DC 20433 USA Security (IIAFS)
Tel: +1 202 458 0683 Curtin University
Email: isow@thegef.org Building 408, level 3, Room 3031
PO Box U1987
World Meteorological Organization Perth WA 6845
Australia
(WMO)
Tel: +61 892664575
Email: janet.bornman@curtin.edu.au
Dr. Geir O. Braathen
Senior Scientific Officer, AREP/Environment
Division, World Meteorological Organization Prof. Nigel Duncan Paul
7bis, Avenue de la Paix, Case Postale 2300 Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster
CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland University
Tel: 41 22 730 8235 Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
Email: gbraathen@wmo.int Tel: +44 1524 510 208
Email: n.paul@lancaster.ac.uk
Scientific Assessment Panel Co-
Prof. Dr. Min Shao
chairs Peking University Center of Environmental
Dr. David Fahey Sciences
Chemical Sciences Division Beijing 100871, China
Earth System Research Laboratory Tel: +86 10 6275 1925
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Email: mshao@pku.edu.cn
(NOAA)
United States of America
Tel: (1 303) 497 5277 Technology and Economic
Email: david.w.fahey@noaa.gov Assessment Panel Co-chairs
Dr. Paul A. Newman Bella Maranion

National Aeronautics and Space Administration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) INFORMATION
SOURCES OF
(NASA), Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Office of Air and Radiation

Branch Office of Atmospheric Programs, Stratospheric
Code 613.3, Goddard Space Flight Center, Protection Division
Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA Mailcode 6205J
Tel: +1 301 614 5985 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Email: Paul.A.Newman@nasa.gov Washington, DC 20460
USA
Prof. John Pyle Tel: (1 202) 343 9749
Centre for Atmospheric Science, Chemistry Email: maranion.bella@epa.gov
Department, Cambridge University
Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
Email: pyle@atm.ch.cam.ac.uk,
John.Pyle@atm.ch.cam.ac.uk
741
Ms. Marta Pizano

Consultant
Hortitecnia Ltd
Bogotá
Colombia
Tel: (+571) 634 8028
Email: mpizano@hortitecnia.com
Ashley Woodcock
North West Lung Centre
South Manchester University Hospital Trust
Manchester M23 9LT
United Kingdom
Email:
INFORMATION
SOURCES OF
742
General index
General Index
Adjustments ....................................................... 709 Methyl bromide ................................. 10, 11, 191
Beijing (1999) ............................................... 706 Methyl chloroform ........................................ 8, 9
Copenhagen (1992) ....................................... 701 Production allowances
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 118–21 Carbon tetrachloride
London (1990) ............................................... 698 Summary................................................ 38
Montreal (1997)............................................. 704 CFCs
Montreal (2007)............................................. 709 Summary................................................ 37
Summary ....................................................... 687 CFCs, other
Vienna (1995)................................................ 703 Summary................................................ 38
Amendments Halons
Beijing Amendment (1999) ..................... 733–36 Summary................................................ 37
Copenhagen Amendment (1992) ............. 721–30 HCFCs
Decisions of the Parties ................................. 557 Summary................................................ 39
London Amendment (1990) .................... 710–20 Methyl bromide
Montreal Amendment (1997) .................. 731–32 Summary................................................ 39
Summary ....................................................... 687 Methyl chloroform
Article 5 Party Summary................................................ 38
Definition ........................................................ 14 Summary .............................................. 35–39
Assessment Panels Bromochloromethane ......................................... 236
Appointments of co-chairs Control measures
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 313–18 Article 2I .................................................... 11
Disclosure of interest ..................................... 296 Summary .................................................... 34
Economic Assessment Panel ......................... 287 Controlled substance
Environmental Assessment Panel.................. 287 Annex C Group III (Montreal Protocol) ..... 25
Co-chairs, contact details.......................... 741 Ozone-depleting potential ............................... 25
Terms of reference.................................... 596 Budgets ................................................. See Finance
Establishment and organisation Bulk substances
Decisions of the Parties .................... 287–313 Definition .................................................. 85, 87
Scientific Assessment Panel .......................... 287 Bureau
Co-chairs, contact details.......................... 741 Decisions of the Parties ................................. 534
Terms of reference.................................... 595 Establishment ................................................ 534
Technical Assessment Panel ......................... 287 Carbon tetrachloride
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Control measures
.................................................................. 291 Article 2D ..................................................... 8
Co-chairs, contact details.......................... 741 Summary .................................................... 30
Terms of reference.................................... 597 Controlled substance
Technology Review Panel ............................. 287 Annex B Group II (Montreal Protocol) ...... 23
Terms of reference ........................................ 605 Decisions of the Parties ........................... 177–80
Aviation ..................................................... 288, 289 Ozone-depleting potential ............................... 23
Special report on aviation and the global CFCs
atmosphere........................................ 572, 573 Control measures
Banks .............................................. See Destruction Article 2A ..................................................... 6
Basel Convention ......90, 93, 95, 116, 117, 584, 661 Summary .................................................... 27
GENERAL
Basic domestic needs ......................................... 288 Controlled substances

INDEX
Carbon tetrachloride .......................................... 8 Annex A Group I (Montreal Protocol) ....... 23

CFCs.............................................................. 6, 7 Decisions of the Parties ........................... 168–71
CFCs, other ................................................... 7, 8 Management strategies .................................. 169
Definition .............................................. 278, 280 Ozone-depleting potentials .............................. 23
Halons ....................................................... 7, 279 CFCs, other
HCFCs ....................................................... 9, 281 Control measures
743
General index
Article 2C ..................................................... 7 Decisions of the Parties ................. 343–47

Summary .................................................... 29 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 330–42
Controlled substances Decisions of the Parties ........................... 319–47
Annex B Group I (Montreal Protocol)........ 23 Discrepancies ................................................ 320
Ozone-depleting potentials .............................. 23 Early reporting .............................................. 335
Climate change................................................... 292 Exports .......................................................... 252
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 567–71 Formats and methodologies
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 289, Decisions of the Parties ...................... 319–22
291, 568, 569, 570, 573, 665 Period .................................................... 319, 321
Kyoto Protocol ...........95, 96, 567, 570, 571, 659 Decisions of the Parties ...................................... 43
Special report................................................. 568 Declarations ....................................................... 671
United Nations Framework Convention on Beijing, 1999 ................................................. 659
Climate Change ....95, 96, 291, 567, 568, 569, CFCs, 1990 .................................................... 650
570, 571, 574 Colombo, 2001 .............................................. 662
Workshop on alternative substances ............. 570 Control measures, 1991 ................................. 652
Compliance ............................. See Non-compliance Countries with economies in transition, 1993 655
Consumption Decisions of the Parties ........................... 528–29
Calculation ...................................................... 12 Doha, 2008 .................................................... 667
Definition .......................................................... 4 Global transition from HCFCs and CFCs, 2010
Control levels, calculation .................................................................. 670
Article 3 ........................................................... 11 HCFCs, 1993 ......................................... 653, 654
Control measures HCFCs, 1995 ................................................. 657
Article 2 ............................................................. 4 HCFCs, 1997 ................................................. 658
Decisions of the Parties ......................... 118–239 HCFCs, HFCs and PFCs, 1998 ..................... 659
Developing countries... See Developing countries Helsinki, 1989 ............................................... 650
Review High-GWP alternatives to ODSs, 2009 ......... 669
Article 6 ...................................................... 17 Methyl bromide, 1992 ................................... 652
Decisions of the Parties .................... 287–318 Methyl bromide, 1993 ................................... 654
Summary ................................................... 27–39 Methyl bromide, 1995 ................................... 657
Controlled substances Methyl bromide, 1997 ................................... 658
Annex A .......................................................... 23 Methyl bromide, 2003 ................................... 663
Annex B .......................................................... 23 Methyl bromide, 2004 ................................... 664
Annex C .......................................................... 24 Montreal, 2007 .............................................. 666
Annex E ........................................................... 26 Multilateral environmental agreements, 2004 664
Decisions of the Parties ............................. 85–87 Multilateral Fund, 1994 ................................. 655
Definition ............................................ 4, 86, 263 Ouagadougou, 2000 ...................................... 661
Controlled substances produced ....... See Production Ozone-depleting substances, 1990 ................ 651
Countries with economies in transition ...... 571, 572 Pacific Island countries, 2001 ....................... 663
Critical-use exemptions (methyl bromide) ... 11, 630 Question of Yugoslavia, 1992 ....................... 653
Decisions of the Paries ............................ 210–35 Transitioning to Low-GWP alternatives to
Duration......................................................... 219 ODSs, 2011 .............................................. 670
Emergency uses ............................................. 212 Definitions
Evaluation of nominations..................... 624, 627 Article 1............................................................. 4
Reporting ............................................... 618, 630 Decisions of the Parties ........................... 85–117
Customs codes ................................... 245, 263, 320 Destruction
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 324–25 Approved processes....................................... 581
Discussion group ........................... 262, 263, 325 Banks, environmentally sound management .. 94,
Customs Co-operation Council . See World Customs 96
Organization Code of good housekeeping .......................... 587
Customs officers Decisions of the Parties ............................. 87–98
Training ................................................. 264, 265 Definition ........................................................ 87
GENERAL
Data reporting .................................................... 285 Procedures ............................................. 581–710

INDEX
Article 7 ........................................................... 17 Developing countries

Baseline data ................................................. 334 Article 5........................................................... 14
Changes Basic domestic needs
Decisions of the Parties.................. 325–30 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 278–84
Compliance Control measures
Baseline and Base-year data Decisions of the Parties ...................... 277–78
744
General index
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 271–86 Halon bank management ........................... 88, 89
Definitions and classification Halon-1202 .................................................... 236
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 271–77 Management strategies .................................. 173
Participation Ozone-depleting potentials ...................... 23, 171
Decisions of the Parties ............................ 286 Handbook ........................................................... 535
Review under paragraph 8 of Article 5 HBFCs
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 284–85 Control measures
Economic Assessment Panel See Assessment Panels Article 2G ................................................... 10
Entry into force Article 5 .................................................... 277
Article 16 ......................................................... 22 Summary .................................................... 34
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 558–64 Controlled substances
Parties joining afterwards Annex C Group II (Montreal Protocol) ...... 24
Article 17 .................................................... 22 Ozone-depleting potentials .............................. 24
Environmental Assessment Panel ... See Assessment HCFCs
Panels Control measures
Essential uses .............See Essential-use exemptions Article 2F...................................................... 9
Essential-use exemptions Article 5 .................................................... 277
Bromochloromethane ...................................... 11 Summary .................................................... 33
Carbon tetrachloride .......................................... 8 Controlled substances
CFCs.................................................................. 6 Annex C Group I (Montreal Protocol) ....... 24
CFCs, other ....................................................... 8 Decisions of the Parties ........................... 180–89
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 122–44 Ozone-depleting potentials .............................. 24
Definition ...................................................... 122 HFCs ...................................288, 567, 568, 570, 659
Halons ............................................... 7, 123, 171 hydrofluorocarbons
HBFCs ............................................................. 10 Decisions of the Parties ................................. 195
Methyl bromide ....... See Critical-use exemptions Illegal trade ................................................ 169, 325
(methyl bromide) Decisions of the Parties ........................... 261–70
Methyl chloroform ............................................ 9 Disposal of substances .................................. 262
Nominations .................................................. 290 Implementation Committee
Nominations timetable .................................. 123 and Executive Committee ............................. 356
Reporting accounting framework .................. 594 Composition .................................................. 631
Summary ....................................................... 591 Decisions of the Parties ........................... 353–60
Executive Committee ............. See Multilateral Fund Functions ....................................................... 631
Export licenses ....................... See Licensing system Role ....................................................... 348, 351
Exports ....................................................... 253, 281 Term of office ............................................... 355
Facilities under construction .......................... 4, 239 Import licenses ....................... See Licensing system
Feedstock Industrial rationalization ........................................ 6
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 99–100 Definition .................................................. 4, 117
Finance ............................................................... 649 Information
Article 13 ......................................................... 21 Sources .................................................... 739–41
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 536–56 Information, exchange of
Trust Fund Article 9........................................................... 18
Establishment ........................................... 536 Decisions of the Parties ........................... 474–75
Terms of reference.................................... 643 Inspection technologies ...................................... 264
UN scale of assessments ........................... 644 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...... See
Financial mechanism.............. See Multilateral Fund Climate change
Global Environment Facility International Civil Aviation Organization... 78, 173,
Contact details ............................................... 741 174, 175, 176, 289, 291, 573
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 571–72 International organizations ................................. 574
Green Customs Initiative ................................... 266 International Plant Protection Convention ......... 203
Halons Introduction Adjustments
GENERAL
Control measures Article 2............................................................. 5

INDEX
Article 2B ..................................................... 7 Isomers

Summary .................................................... 28 Definition ........................................................ 86
Controlled substances Kyoto Protocol .......................... See Climate change
Annex A Group II (Montreal Protocol) ...... 23 Labelling .................................................... 262, 574
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 171–77 Globally Harmonized System for the
Decommissioning .......................................... 172 Classification and Labelling of Chemicals 574
745
General index
Laboratory and analytical uses and Implementation Committee ............... 503

Categories ...................................................... 592 Membership
Conditions for exemption .............................. 592 Decisions of the Parties ............... 496–502
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 144–55 Organisation
Licensing system ................................................ 281 Decisions of the Parties ................. 505–15
Article 4B ........................................................ 14 Rules of procedure.............496, 503, 504, 642
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 252–70 Terms of reference.................................... 639
Meetings of the Parties Fixed-exchange-rate mechanism
Article 11 ......................................................... 20 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 491–95
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 523–34 Implementing agencies ............................ 19, 634
Metered-dose inhalers ........................................ 290 Incremental costs ........................................... 637
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 155–67 Interim mechanism
Methyl bromide Decisions of the Parties ...................... 476–78
Control measures Legal status.................................................... 479
Article 2H ................................................... 10 LVC projects ................................................. 516
Article 5 .................................................... 277 Meetings ................................................ 518, 535
Summary .................................................... 35 Methyl bromide ..................................... 515, 518
Controlled substance Production sector ........................................... 517
Annex E (Montreal Protocol) ..................... 26 Refrigerant management plans ...................... 518
Critical uses See Critical-use exemptions (methyl Replenishments
bromide) Decisions of the Parties ...................... 479–91
Critical-use exemptions .............. See Critical-use Reviews and evaluations
exemptions (methyl bromide) Decisions of the Parties ...................... 505–19
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 189–94 Secretariat
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee Contact details .......................................... 740
Financial assistance .................................. 295 Terms of reference ........................................ 636
Membership ...................................... 295, 625 New substances .................................................. 292
Terms of reference.................................... 293 Decisions of the Parties ........................... 235–38
Multilateral Fund ................................... 190, 278 Non-compliance
Ozone-depleting potential ............................... 26 Albania
Methyl chloroform Decisions of the Parties ...................... 360–61
Control measures Amendment procedure .................................. 349
Article 2E ..................................................... 8 Argentina
Summary .................................................... 31 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 361–62
Controlled substance Armenia
Annex B Group III (Montreal Protocol) ..... 23 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 362–64
Ozone-depleting potential ............................... 23 Article 8........................................................... 18
Mixtures ............................................................. 321 Azerbaijan
Definition ...................................................... 263 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 364–67
Montreal Protocol ................................................ 26 Bahamas
1987 text ........................................................ 696 Decisions of the Parties ............................ 367
Adjustments............................... See Adjustments Bangladesh
Amendments ............................See Amendments Decisions of the Parties ...................... 368–70
Future challenges........................................... 575 Belarus
Relationship to Vienna Convention Decisions of the Parties ...................... 370–72
Article 14 .................................................... 21 Belize
Decisions of the Parties ............................ 557 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 372–73
Multilateral Fund ............................................... 642 Bolivia
Administration ............................................... 635 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 373–75
Article 10 ......................................................... 18 Bosnia and Herzegovina
Budget and contributions............................... 635 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 375–79
GENERAL
Business plan ................................................. 516 Botswana

INDEX
Contributions ................................................... 19 Decisions of the Parties ............................ 379

Decisions of the Parties ...................... 479–91 Bulgaria
Decisions of the Parties ......................... 476–522 Decisions of the Parties ............................ 380
Establishment Cameroon
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 478–79 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 380–83
Executive Committee ...................................... 19 Chile
746
General index
China Lithuania
Czech Republic Maldives
Decisions of the Parties ......................... 348–473 Mexico
Democratic People’s Republic of the Korea Decisions of the Parties ...................... 427–29
Decisions of the Parties ............................ 387 Morocco
Democratic Republic of the Congo Decisions of the Parties ............................ 429
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 386–89 Namibia
Dominica Decisions of the Parties ...................... 429–30
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 389–90 Nepal
Ecuador Decisions of the Parties ...................... 431–33
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 390–92 Nigeria
Eritrea Decisions of the Parties ...................... 433–34
Decisions of the Parties ............................ 393 Oman
Estonia Decisions of the Parties ............................ 434
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 393–94 Pakistan
Ethiopia Decisions of the Parties ...................... 434–36
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 394–96 Papua New Guinea
European Union Decisions of the Parties ...................... 436–37
Decisions of the Parties ............................ 396 Paraguay
Federated States of Micronesia Decisions of the Parties ...................... 437–39
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 396–97 Peru
Fiji Decisions of the Parties ............................ 439
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 397–99 Poland
France Decisions of the Parties ...................... 439–40
Decisions of the Parties ............................ 399 Procedure....................................................... 633
Greece Decisions of the Parties ...................... 348–52
Decisions of the Parties .................... 399–401 Review .............................................. 349, 350
Groups of Parties Qatar
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 469–73 Decisions of the Parties ............................ 440
Guatemala Russian Federation
Decisions of the Parties ........................ 401–4 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 441–46
Guinea-Bissau Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Haiti Saudi Arabia
Honduras Serbia
Decisions of the Parties ........................ 406–8 Decisions of the Parties ............................ 451
Indicative list of measures ..................... 348, 633 Sierra Leone
Iran Decisions of the Parties ...................... 451–52
Decisions of the Parties ........................ 408–9 Singapore
Iraq Decisions of the Parties ............................ 452
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 410–11 Solomon Island
Kazakhstan Decisions of the Parties ...................... 452–53
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 411–14 Somalia
Kenya Decisions of the Parties ...................... 453–56
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 414–15 Stockpiles ...................................................... 352
Korea, Republic of Tajikistan
GENERAL
Kyrgyzstan Timor Leste

INDEX
Latvia Turkmenistan
Lesotho Uganda
Libya Ukraine
747
General index
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 461–64 Article 18 ......................................................... 22

Uruguay Rules of procedure ............................................. 684
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 464–66 Decisions of the Parties ........................... 529–30
Uzbekistan Sales bans ........................................................... 169
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 466–68 Scientific Assessment Panel. See Assessment Panels
Vanuatu Secretariat
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 467–68 Appointment of Executive Secretary............. 535
Viet Nam Article 12 ......................................................... 21
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 468–73 Contact details ............................................... 739
Non-Parties Decisions of the Parties ................................. 535
Compliance with Protocol Meetings ................................................ 518, 535
Decisions of the Parties ...................... 240–45 Publications ................................................... 740
n-propyl bromide ....................................... 236, 238 Web site......................................................... 740
Open-ended Working Group Ships, ODS use on ............................................. 268
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 530–33 Signature
Establishment ................................................ 530 Article 15 ......................................................... 22
Participation by non-Parties .......................... 530 Strategic Approach to International Chemicals
Ozone layer ........................................................ 292 Management .................................................. 265
Ozone Secretariat .............................. See Secretariat Technical Assessment Panel See Assessment Panels
Preamble Technology and Economic Assessment Panel .... See
Montreal Protocol .............................................. 3 Assessment Panels
Process agents Technology transfer ................................... 285, 516
Decisions of the Parties ......................... 100–115 Article 10A ...................................................... 20
Production Decisions of the Parties ........................... 520–22
Calculation ...................................................... 12 Developing countries....................................... 15
Definition .................................................... 4, 86 Non-Parties ...................................................... 13
Products containing controlled substances Texts, authentic
Annex B ................................................ 246, 247 Article 20 ......................................................... 22
Annex D ........................................................ 245 Tracking system
Definition ...................................................... 263 Feasibility study ............................................ 265
HBFCs ........................................................... 247 Trade
List Licensing ........................... See Licensing system
Annex D ..................................................... 26 Non-Parties
Products produced with, but not containing, Annex C.................................................... 246
controlled substances Article 4 ...................................................... 12
Annex A ........................................................ 246 Decisions of the Parties ...................... 240–48
Public awareness Methyl bromide ................................ 246, 247
Article 9 ........................................................... 18 Restrictions on trade
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 474–75 Decisions of the Parties ................. 245–47
Publications Parties
Secretariat ...................................................... 740 Article 4A ................................................... 14
Quarantine and pre-shipment Decisions of the Parties ...................... 249–50
Decisions of the Parties ......................... 195–210 Trade names ......................................................... 86
Definitions ..................................... 198, 199, 200 Transfer of consumption ........................................ 4
Exemption ............................................... 11, 199 Transfer of production ........................................... 4
Ratifications Transfer of technology ....... See Technology transfer
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 558–64 Transitional substances ...................................... 287
Reclamation ............................................... 115, 117 Trans-shipment
Recovery .................................................... 115, 117 Decisions of the Parties ................................. 323
Recycling ................................................... 115, 117 Trust Fund ............................................. See Finance
Refrigeration service sector Ultraviolet radiation ................................... 289, 292
GENERAL
Chillers .......................................................... 170 United Nations Development Programme

INDEX
Regional economic integration organization Contact details ............................................... 740

Joint consumption ............................................. 5 United Nations Environment Programme
Research Contact details ............................................... 740
Article 9 ........................................................... 18 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 474–75 Change ................................. See Climate change
Reservations
748
General index
United Nations Industrial Development World Bank

Organization Contact details ............................................... 741
Contact details ............................................... 740 World Customs Organization...... 57, 262, 263, 267,
Used substances ................................................. 261 268, 269, 324, 325, 575
Decisions of the Parties ........................... 115–17 World Meteorological Organization
Withdrawal Contact details ............................................... 741
Article 19 ......................................................... 22 World Summit on Sustainable Development ..... 573
Decisions of the Parties ................................. 566 World Trade Organization ................................. 574
GENERAL
INDEX
749

2016 Ods Montreal Protocol Handbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Ods Montreal Protocol Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook for the

Tenth edition (2016)

United Nations Environment Programme

Printed and bound in Kenya by UNON. Printed on recycled paper.

Layout and formatting:

Section 1 The Montreal Protocol .................................................. 1

Summary of control measures under the Montreal Protocol ............................. 27

Annex C – Group I: HCFCs (consumption) ......................................................................................... 32

Section 2 Decisions of the Meetings of the Parties to the

Article 2: Control measures ..................................................................................................................... 118

Decisions on non-compliance: Democratic Republic of the Congo ................................................... 388

Section 3 Relevant Annexes to the Decisions of the Parties579

Essential use exemptions .................................................................................... 589

Assessment panels .............................................................................................. 595

Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide ...................................................... 606

Non-Compliance procedure................................................................................. 631

The Multilateral Fund ........................................................................................... 634

Finance .................................................................................................................. 643

Declarations .......................................................................................................... 650

Section 4 Rules of Procedure ................................................... 673

Section 5 The Evolution of the Montreal Protocol .................. 685

Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol ................................................................ 697

The London Amendment (1990) .......................................................................... 710

The Copenhagen Amendment (1992) ................................................................. 721

The Montreal Amendment (1997) ........................................................................ 731

The Beijing Amendment (1999) ........................................................................... 733

Section 6 Sources of Further Information ............................... 737

General Index .............................................................................. 743

The year 2016 marks the twenty-ninth anniversary of the negotiations of

Welcome to the tenth edition of the Handbook for the Montreal

The Montreal Protocol

as adjusted and amended by the Second Meeting of the Parties (London,

The Parties to this Protocol,

Conscious of the potential climatic effects of emissions of these substances,

HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

For the purposes of this Protocol:

3. “Secretariat” means the Secretariat of the Convention.

6. “Consumption” means production plus imports minus exports of controlled substances.

Article 2: Control Measures

1. Incorporated in Article 2A.

2. Replaced by Article 2B.

3. Replaced by Article 2A.

4. Replaced by Article 2A.

Introduction to the adjustments

Article 2A: CFCs

Article 2B: Halons

Article 2C: Other fully halogenated CFCs

Article 2D: Carbon tetrachloride

Article 2E: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform)

Article 2F: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons

7. As of 1 January 1996, each Party shall endeavour to ensure that:

Article 2G: Hydrobromofluorocarbons

Article 2H: Methyl bromide

Article 2I: Bromochloromethane

Article 3: Calculation of control levels

(a) Production by:

Article 4: Control of trade with non-Parties

Article 4A: Control of trade with Parties

Article 4B: Licensing

Article 5: Special situation of developing countries

8 bis. Based on the conclusions of the review referred to in paragraph 8 above:

8 ter. Pursuant to paragraph 1 bis above:

restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment existing on 1 January